alt Hacker NewsWhy? Copyright is 1) presented as being there to protect the interests of the general public, not creators, 2) Statute of Anne, the birth of modern copyright law, protected printers - that is "big businesss" over creators anyway, so even that has largely always been a fiction.
But it is also increasingly dubious that the public gets a good deal out of copyright law anyway.
> From artists and authors not publishing their works publicly
The vast majority of creators have never been able to get remotely close to make a living from their creative work, and instead often when factoring in time lose money hand over fist trying to get their works noticed.
Replies
> Why? Copyright is 1) presented as being there to protect the interests of the general public, not creators
Doesn’t matter, both the ”public interest” and ”creator rights” arguments have the same impact: you’re either hurting creators directly, or you’re hurting the public benefit when you remove or reduce the economic incentives. The transfer of wealth and irreversible damage is there, whether you care about Lars Ulrichs gold toilet or our future kids who can’t enjoy culture and libraries to protect from adversarial and cynical tech moguls.
> 2) Statute of Anne, the birth of modern copyright law, protected printers - that is "big businesss" over creators anyway, so even that has largely always been a fiction.
> The vast majority of creators have never been able to get remotely close to make a living from their creative work
Nobody is saying copyright is perfect. We’re saying it’s the system we have and it should apply equally.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Defending the AI corps on basis of copyright being broken is like saying the tax system is broken, so therefore it’s morally right for the ultra-rich to relocate assets to the Caymans. Or saying that democracy is broken, so it’s morally sound to circumvent it (like Thiel says).
I generally let it slide because these copyright discussions tend to be about America, and as such it can be assumed American law and what it inherits from British law is what pertains.
>Copyright is 1) presented as being there to protect the interests of the general public, not creators,
yes, in the U.S in the EU creators have moral rights to their works and the law is to protect their interests.
There are actually moral rights and rights of exploitation, in EU you can transfer the latter but not the former.
>But it is also increasingly dubious that the public gets a good deal out of copyright law anyway.
In the EU's view of copyright the public doesn't need to get a good deal, the creators of copyrighted works do.