so many struggling artists minds have been destroyed by the parasitical worm of capitalism so that they think copyright is in any way good for them
@garfiald Very few people actually derive any income from anything relating to "ownership" of intellectual property.
@garfiald I generally agree with this but also interested in ideas on how an artist can make a living without copyright.
@polychrome in an ideal society everyone gets to live, nobody has to "make a living". In our society, 99.9% of artists already do make a living without copyright. They have a day job, are supported through patronage, and selling their art as a product (visual artists selling originals for example), or as a service (commissions, performances, etc). Intellectual property is capital, the only people who make real money from it are capitalists.
@garfiald This so much. Copyright is such a burden to a free culture.... and the comparison to rent is so good.
Of all the things in capitalism which should go after another, rental capitalism is very high on my list.
Patents are probably the biggest fuckup of this whole copyright mess...
@garfiald worse in the sense of more unequal maybe, but not worse in the sense of "immiserates as many people," which I think is more important
I don't disagree with any other part of this, just that phrase bugs me
I see your point, but wouldn't removing copyright (in the current situation) lead to an even higher concentration of intellectual property, because big companies could simply steal successful independent projects, rebrand them as their own and make people forget about the original creator through sheer market dominance?
I'm aware that copyright is not very effective at protecting small creators, i'm just not sure if removing it (under the current capitalist system) wouldn't lead to market dominance becoming an even bigger factor in determining who owns creative output.
@garfiald this so fucking much, i have spent the last 6 years of my life working on games. the amount of intellectual property i own related to them is literally zero. and if a large corporation wanted to steal my independent work i wouldnt be able to do jack shit or fuck all about it without money to invest in legal fees. copyright is bullshit and does literally nothing to protect small time artists
@garfiald It's not like an artist can't set up it's own publishing company, if their work creates significant revenue. Many do that, actually. It's not the same overhead with land property or industry, where you'd need a big coop in order to get somewhere.
Also must bear in mind that copyright has an expiration date, even though Disney and many others try to stretch that out for their own "catalog". Literally hundreds of thousands of works go into the public domain every year globlally.
@tagomago Disney and the like don't "try" to stretch out copyright, they have succeeded and continue to succeed. Copyright does not have an expiration date if you're rich enough. Artists whose "work creates significant revenue" are a vanishingly small minority, and when new publishing companies do succeed, more often than not, it is on the back of the exploitation of their writers and other employees. Which is not much good either.
@garfiald Actually, the minority is the copyright elite. Artists could set up either their own publishing companies, or coops to do just that. And copyrighted works expire, believe it or not...
Would you imagine land property, or property in general, expiring out, globally, every year? Well, that's the copyright law. I think both kinds of properties are not so comparable if you think about that.
@tagomago I agree that the comparison breaks down in this respect. Because to think as one piece of intellectual property as equivalent to a house is not accurate. Since those works which expire are overwhelmingly ones with little to no returns. If the IP you own is valuable enough, you can afford to extend it forever. As can be empirically observed. Co-operative publishers are great, I've written for some. But they just can't earn writers enough to live.
@garfiald However, there are lots of books that keep being long sellers more than a hundred years in the public domain, namely Russian or French literature, Shakespeare... oh, the Bible (biggest seller of all times). I believe public domain is in the 1940s now? There's a lot of that in the market.
Not the same with visual art, though, I guess 'cause it's too new, and keeps evolving heavily, so...
@garfiald I think you might have a vested interest in this. Are you being sued over your use of Garfield?
@garfiald I’m doing a re-telling of a story that’s very important to me and it sucks that if I were to ever want to get it published I would have to change all the names, and hell it might be too close to the original in some places to even be legal. The only people who will ever see it are probably my close friends
@FirstProgenitor yeah that really sucks im sorry. its still worth doing though and im glad youre doing it
@garfiald the best part about this line of argument is that people already have said this as excuses for why fanfiction and hip-hop aren't actually "real" art. they are already saying the quiet part about what they think of art out loud; it's just buried knee deep in individualist rhetoric
@garfiald that stuff should be covered by defamation laws, not copyright. if someone used something i made to spread a hateful message and imply that i agree with that message, i think some legal intervention might be good then.
@garfiald It's funny because shit like star wars basically completely aped older works and got away with it. A lot of popular franchises were built off of derivations of older works (that nobody really remembers anymore). Then the people who made it big proceeded to push insane ideas of intellectual property that would have gotten them into hot water if those laws originally existed when they first wrote their story
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!