this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
949 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
60052 readers
3346 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you're referring to copyright as the actual effective title as owner of the works then yes. If you're referring to copyright as in our system if copyright == monopoly, then no.
So if I own it... as the sole writer of some work. But don't have a monopoly over how it's used...
What the fuck logic is that? Can you care to explain how I, as the owner of the work cannot impose whatever limits I want to it?
This involves trying to imagine a system other than the one we currently use.
The concept of exclusive ownership makes sense for material goods because if I have an object, you cannot have that object. If I want a copy of that object, it takes the same amount of resources as it took to make the original object. It's a fundamental property of matter and energy, but information does not have the same properties. Information can be stored infinitely smally, and replicated for virtually nothing, as many times as you want.
In the digital age, where every single person now has an incredibly powerful information processing machine that is networked to every single other one, it means that once information is digitized, it costs us virtually nothing to distribute it to everyone on earth who wants it.
Copyright only exists, because once we started to be able to do this with early technologies like the printing press, vinyls, VHS, etc, it showed that you could rapidly drive the value of that work down to zero dollars, because in capitalism, thing only have value if they are scarce. Air is a necessity for everyone to live but it costs nothing because it's all around us. It suddenly gets valuable in places where it's scarce, but as long as it's abundant, it has no value according capitalism. So continuing to allow the free copying of works meant that the original creators would never get rewarded. This made some sense at a time when it took months and a ton of resources to chop down trees, make paper, print a book, and ship it across the world and then get a response back regarding it.
But now, in the digital age, we have all the tools we need to build a middle man free service that would allow everyone to watch or read anything, and reward the creators based on how much their works are used or viewed or remixed. It's basically how music streaming services and the behind the scenes remix/sampling licensing deals work already, they just have a ton of corporate middle men taking profits at every step.
In print media, advertising driven models are hamfisted work arounds that do the same thing of providing the information to everyone, but again, with middle men that fuck the authors and ruin the experience for readers.
Spotify, Apple Music, etc could all still exist, they'd just all have access to the same content catalog and you'd be picking and paying solely based on the quality of the interface and service they provide.
It's also not a crazy idea that once you create an idea you don't get to exclusively own it. For the vast majority of human history, copyright did not exist, and the only way that stories and songs and ideas were passed on was through chains of people copying and retelling them.
No it doesn't. Just because the work I created was done in paint or word doesn't make it any less mine. Just because I could distribute it freely doesn't make me obligated to. I am justified in asking for compensation and proposing limits on how it's shared.
This is no different to printing the physical version of these works. I could print 10 copies of the book and tell my friends they cannot distribute it. Just the same I could send them an email with the works and say the same thing.
There is no difference here.
This has no logical basis in your response though. You're saying that creators of works would have no say in how much a digital work is copied/transferred. How do you prove how much a work is even used/viewed? That would require heaps and loads of DRM management and to go after those who circumvent those measures... which takes money/infrastructure... and GASP That's exactly what the publishers are doing now! Look at that!
We've proven time and time again that people will pick the legal option as long as it's more convenient and a better product than the illegal one.
Spotify and Netflix stomped piracy in every region they entered, PC games that don't have DRM still sell like crazy through Steam.
And while it would require monitoring of metrics, that's not the same as DRM that prevents you from using something.
But it doesn't sound like you care to imagine a different system or why it would be better, you seem to just want to demand that the concept of information ownership stay exactly as the 1900s US Congress and Court System, in all their unquestionable wisdom, determined it should be.
Steam... IS a DRM. https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/drm
Nope, just asked to to clarify how this magic system can work without someone to enforce it. And you've yet to answer that.
Steam is not popular because of its DRM. And again, in this scenario, everyone would have access to everything. The system's only job would be tracking what gets downloaded / played and rewarding creators based on that.
Given that you're dismissively talking about a "magic system" while trying to defend against being closed minded towards it, that defense rings pretty hollow.
And I've never said there wouldn't be anyone to enforce it, I said there would be no incentive not to use it.
When you've proposed nothing that actually holds anyone accountable... You're not winning anyone over.
GOG as an example would have been better. But you didn't choose that. You chose a system that DOES have DRM and DOES act like a publisher and takes a cut. That isn't a good way to sell your "new system" when Steam does EVERYTHING the "old system" does.
Edit: And now, because you simply don't agree with me, you downvote the comments after the fact. Just because I called out how your idea doesn't work. Congrats!
Given that you can see a different comparable example, and yet instead of just going "yeah like GOG", or thinking to yourself "yeah GOG would be a better example, I get what he means though", you're going "YOU didn't SAY gog WHAT an ASSHOLE", I again, urge you to reflect on whether you're having a good faith conversation or whether you just have a stick up your ass about something and are venting online.
And no, Steam prevents people who haven't purchased a game from playing it. You are fundamentally not understanding what I'm writing if you're not seeing how that's different from a system where everyone has access to everything.
No. My point is that when you think of YOUR perfect system. You don't actually think of one that actually more closely meets what you described. That shows the innate problem with your idea as you haven't even fully thought through it enough to even recognize what it looks like. And ultimately how it oftentimes does work for developers that wish to be more protective of their assets.
Regardless. Let me show you why even GOG doesn't work out. Forget the fact that they need to take a cut still anyway (and be the middleman) for at the minimum of costs of infrastructure.
You can't beat the cost of a torrent. Either in actual costs, or their distribution.
Go back and reread my comments, you have evidently not understood anything I wrote.
... Nothing you wrote addresses any of the concerns/criticisms that I've levied in return. There's nothing additional to read and you've failed to furnish more. Talk about bad faith discussions. You're response is literally "go google it"... "go read it again", same bullshit hand-wavy nonsense.
You seem to think that you can do ANY of this without some form of DRM and copyright. Remember, you stated
While at the same time outlining a literal middleman service as your standard. If a writer/artist/whatever wanted to self-publish. Nothing stops them. Open a website with magento, woocommerce, Prestashop... whatever you want. And sell it for whatever you think is fair. That would be the best case instance to cut out the middleman. This doesn't mean you can just strip a person of their rights to their works just because it's "free" to make duplicates of it. It's wild that you start the premise with that requirement from the get go, going down the premise proves that it wouldn't work, which was most of the point of my comments. But you seem wildly disinterested in actually discussing anything. You're nearly as bad as the people who claim communism works... but we just never saw true communism. (which is just as bad as people who claim any absolute system works... when we've never seen it work at all).
From your original comment. There's a difference in rights to the works vs rights to the performance/recording. And further there's a difference between "personal" and "commercial" usages. The reason those stories and songs are passed down is because personal use is effectively unenforceable (and retelling in your own words would be what we call "fair use"). In your world, you'd make it also unenforceable for commercial usages as well.
Again, you don't understand what I wrote. Read more and write less.
Maybe try being less of an angry gnome.
Imagine actually attempting to continue a conversation.
Don't actually do it. Just imagine it.
Nah, you need to read more!
It's not a conversation, it's you venting the stick up your ass.
If the stick is in my ass, how could I possibly be venting it? Can you at least attempt to make sense?
Apparently it's a very long stick.
The shitty part of the stick... which would be the smelly part, would be firmly lodged no? The stick itself wouldn't be smelly, which would be the only part that could be vented.
Sure, you don't actually own it. The words you strung together are not actually yours nor is the grammar you strung it together with. The knowledge you used to create it is also not yours.
The only way to ensure no one reads, borrows, or "steals" your work is to never share it with anyone and certainly never put it on the Internet.
The only way to ensure it is truly yours is to never have participated in society, invent your own language, and of course hide it from ever being discovered.
This is the only real way. You need to create in a vacuum and lock it up so no one will ever find it. Then and only then can it truly be yours.