It isn’t about what the charges are it is about what people think. If we redefined the crime of murder as “foo” and charged people the same way it isn’t like murder went away.
Whatever value copyright was supposed to give us it has failed to do so. Abolish it.
Actually that’s not the purpose of copyright - people would be able to profit without copyright. You can argue about how much or how little they could profit, or how much more or less convenient it would be to consume their work. The purpose of copyright is to limit this period of exclusivity, and ensure that after the period expires, ownership reverts to the people. It’s a trade- government allows exclusive profit on the condition that it is temporary.
The problem is copyright has been perverted over the last hundred years, mostly by Disney, to the point that it is effectively permanent.
Maybe you can point out where I said what you claimed I said. I want to see it. Not what you choose to infer because strawman arguments are easier than actual arguments.
Maybe you can point out where I said what you claimed I said.
I guess I’ll just reply with your own comment:
It isn’t about what the charges are it is about what people think. If we redefined the crime of murder as “foo” and charged people the same way it isn’t like murder went away.
Whatever value copyright was supposed to give us it has failed to do so. Abolish it.
How is someone going to be compensated for their creative work if anyone can come along and just make copies of it? Copyright prevents people from just making copies of other people’s work. You want to do away with copyright, thus removing that protection and severely hindering the ability of anyone to make money from creative works.
>That’s literally what the purpose of copyright is.
the purpose of copyrigth is to stop 18th century british printers from breaking each others’ knees over who was allowed to publish the works of long-dead shakespeare
It isn’t about what the charges are it is about what people think. If we redefined the crime of murder as “foo” and charged people the same way it isn’t like murder went away.
Whatever value copyright was supposed to give us it has failed to do so. Abolish it.
What a weird stance that you don’t think anyone should be able to be compensated for their work. That’s literally what the purpose of copyright is.
Actually that’s not the purpose of copyright - people would be able to profit without copyright. You can argue about how much or how little they could profit, or how much more or less convenient it would be to consume their work. The purpose of copyright is to limit this period of exclusivity, and ensure that after the period expires, ownership reverts to the people. It’s a trade- government allows exclusive profit on the condition that it is temporary.
The problem is copyright has been perverted over the last hundred years, mostly by Disney, to the point that it is effectively permanent.
>you don’t think anyone should be able to be compensated for their work.
that’s not what they said. no one is saying that.
Where did I say that strawman?
You want to do away with copyright. Maybe think a bit harder about the implications of the things you think you want.
Maybe you can point out where I said what you claimed I said. I want to see it. Not what you choose to infer because strawman arguments are easier than actual arguments.
deleted by creator
I guess I’ll just reply with your own comment:
Maybe you don’t actually know what abolish means?
Point to the comment that I advocated this.
How is someone going to be compensated for their creative work if anyone can come along and just make copies of it? Copyright prevents people from just making copies of other people’s work. You want to do away with copyright, thus removing that protection and severely hindering the ability of anyone to make money from creative works.
Why can’t you admit that you lied? It is fairly easy
>That’s literally what the purpose of copyright is.
the purpose of copyrigth is to stop 18th century british printers from breaking each others’ knees over who was allowed to publish the works of long-dead shakespeare