It’s one thing that copyright/IP is such a matter of debate in the creative world, but a whole new layer is added onto that when people say that it only matters for a certain amount of time. You may have read all those articles a few months ago, the same ones telling us about how Mickey Mouse (technically Steamboat Willy) is now up for grabs 95 years after his creation.

There are those who say “as long as it’s popular it shouldn’t be pirated”, those who say “as long as the creator is around”, those who don’t apply a set frame, etc. I’ve even seen people say they wouldn’t dare redistribute paleolithic paintings because it was their spark on the world. What philosophy of statutes of limitation make the most sense to you when it comes to creative work?

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
7 points

Who does IP serve? It seems to me it serves very wealthy people who have the legal means to protect it. With that in mind, I think we should just get rid of it.

permalink
report
reply
17 points

As someone who makes minimum wage from my intellectual property, the IP laws (in the UK) have allowed me to prevent the very wealthy just taking my ideas and profiting from them.

And they have tried repeatedly.

It isn’t the law, but the corruption of the law that’s at issue. However, without that legal framework there would be no financial incentive for anyone but the wealthy to make IP.

Is that what you want? Entertainment by big corporations only, and art made solely by the upper middle classes?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

People already make memes and mods for free. Humans are a social species and will continue to create and share things until the end of time. Making money off of creation is a privilege for only a tiny few.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

And as I said in my comment, it isn’t my customers that want stuff for free, often they want to pay to support me. Those laws stop big multinational corporations from taking my work and selling it on their t-shirts.

We are social creatures, but fuck me, we need to eat and pay rent.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

So you think that because some people chose to make things for free there should be no legal protection for people that want to sell what they make?

The only people who can choose to make things for free are the privilidged few.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I see you make art. What if I said to you, I’d like to give you some money for that art, for maybe a print of it. Not just so that I can own some but because I want to support you.

And then someone just copies your art and gives it to me free. You get no money for it.

Are you genuinely OK with that? Are you saying that everything you make is copyright free?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Ideally it is a way for somebody who put a lot of time and effort into something (as a loss) to get paid for their work. But our current system favours patent trolls and billionaires

permalink
report
parent
reply

Asklemmy

!asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Create post

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it’s welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Icon by @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de

Community stats

  • 9.3K

    Monthly active users

  • 3K

    Posts

  • 50K

    Comments