undefined

points

[-]

It encourages creation of new works just fine, but at the expense of creating billions of tiny monopolies that last for generations, which get aggregated into huge monopolies, ultimately making ordinary people into criminals for wanting to preserve or modify the works that make up their culture.

My point is that it doesn't need to do that. Copyright could still encourage creation of new works with a much shorter duration, without the downside of locking our culture up in monopolies for life + 70.

by dageshi3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

None of that contravenes the purpose of copyright in encouraging the creation and sharing of new works.

You could equally solve the issue by providing provisions for archival. Or a provision that requires a work to be freely available for sale.

The creator having a monopoly on the work seems to me to encourage the creation and sharing of work as intended.

by dvdkon2 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Most of that art is being created irrespective of copyright, though. Much of it uses exceptions to copyright and some is straight up in violation (most "fan art"/fanfiction). It's either not monetised or monetised through things like Patreon.

I wouldn't say we have more "traditional" art that an author spends time creating with the vision of selling copies for years to come, than we did when copyright terms were shorter.

by dageshi1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I doubt that's true.

Is there a lot of fan art, yes, there's also massive amounts of original works as well. There is no lack of either.

by dvdkon22 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

I don't have any numbers on fan art vs original works floating around the web, but even those original works aren't being monetised via copyright. They would be created even if copyright was abolished or significantly weakened.