Hacker News Reader

I don't know about Stallman, but, as I interpret it, Bradley Kuhn agrees with you.

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/mar/17/copyleft-ethical-...

> Netflix literally exists to solve the problems created by copyright itself

You do realize that barely any of that content they provide would even exist without copyright. There would be two outcomes either movies only get released in cinemas and the original copy is for projection is heavily guarded with not official "home video" releases at all or no movies with a significant budget ever get released.

> Everything humanity ever created would be available at our fingertips.

Yes but "Everything" in that situation would only be a marginal proportion of what is available now. Forget expensive movies/tv shows/etc. how could even any writer make a living on his own without having to rely on some reason patron or a full time job like back in the 16th century?

You're telling me these creators can't find a way to continue working without copyright? Come on. Even big companies use stuff like kickstarter and patreon to raise funds. They'll be fine.

Bold of you to assume that content hasn't been lost. No amount of money is bringing it back. Copyright has nothing to do with it.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/501607/wipe-out-when-bbc...

https://www.historytoday.com/archive/missing-pieces/lost-mov...

> From now on I either release my software as AGPLv3

Why not just make it public domain? That's the default in a world without the right of ownership of code.

> Oops, looks like it's our code now.

How would you make money of it? It's not like you can sell it.

> Were it not for copyright, we'd all be using peer to peer technology invented decades ago to consume content much more efficiently

What content? How would it be paid for, since there's nothing that could be sold?

Even hobby movies are done to make money.

> Why not just make it public domain? That's the default in a world without the right of ownership of code.

Because if I do that I'm just unconditionally transferring wealth to corporations just as you claimed. No point in doing that while they still get to be "all rights reserved". It's only fair if nobody's protected.

> How would you make money of it? It's not like you can sell it.

By using it to do improve our own systems. Apparently what the GPL already provides used to be the norm back in the day before copyright protection was applied to software. We should go back to those days.

> How would it be paid for, since there's nothing that could be sold?

Selling copies after the fact doesn't make sense. Paying for the product before the work is done does. Crowdfunding, patronage. I'm sure they'll figure it out if they have to.

> Crowdfunding, patronage. I'm sure they'll figure it out if they have to

So basically every creator would have to have a rich patron/be funded by a government/etc. who would obviously generally want to impose their own agendas?

> Crowdfunding

So unless an author already has a widespread reputation and a large group of people willing to support him he has no right to benefit from his works? Somebody who is completely unknown but ends up publishing a book which ends up widely popular gets absolutely nothing?

I find it inconceivable bizarre that anyone would ever want to live in such a dark and intellectually subdued world for some ideological reason. I mean abolishing copyright would throw us back to the 15-16th century just with internet instead of the printing press...

But most of that happens already? That's how record labels and publishers do business. You are already living in that dark an intellectually subdued world. A few examples I remember:

https://www.pcgamer.com/the-legal-war-over-disco-elysium-rea...

https://kotaku.com/witcher-author-threatens-cd-projekt-red-w...

https://www.dualshockers.com/nintendo-copyright-strikes-laws...

Copyright is not in place to protect the authors, but to protect the corporations that own the rights.

> Copyright is not in place to protect the authors, but to protect the corporations that own the rights.

The system is not perfect, obviously. There are problems that need to be addressed. But I refuse to view the world in black and white terms

Copyright does protect the author or at least most authors to varying degrees. Just go around and ask any author whether they'd prefer the entire concept of copyright to be abolished because it's used to "protect the corporations"...

> You are already living in that dark an intellectually subdued world

And I'm certain it could get even darker with no copyright protections at all.

> I refuse to view the world in black and white terms

But you are "certain" copyright is good, and removing it would be terrible. That's awfully close to painting things in black and white.

> Just go around and ask any author

I put all my work under open source licenses and creative commons. If copyright disappeared I would just continue to do so. Corporations would be screwed, but art can go on without them.

> So basically every creator would have to have a rich patron/be funded by a government/etc. who would obviously generally want to impose their own agendas?

Already a thing. They even have an euphemism for it: "producer". Every time you watch a film or something, look for the producers in the credits. Those are the guys with the money.

Generally their agenda is just to make more money. This is a relatively benign agenda and in certain cases allows (or used to anyway, not sure about nowadays...) authors a high degree of creative freedom.

If it's no longer possible to make any profitable movies whatsoever, just try to imagine what happens...

Well they managed to realize a couple of decent movies in the USSR so maybe the situation of 99% government or interest group funded cinema and TV production won't be utterly terrible just very miserable.

> Even hobby movies are done to make money.

Not all of them.

Thos who do want to make money will need to adapt to other business models - probably something closer to crowdfunding or patronage. How exactly is irrelevant for copyright reform as the law should not concern itself with protecting specific jobs.