[skinfaxi]

> it did enable a lot of good work to happen.

How do we know that when we don't have a copy of the world without this regime? How much more and greater works could have been produced without such a repressive system?

A really successful work becomes part of the culture, and remixing, derivatives and other modes of integrating cultural artifacts are prohibited. Why should we allow corporations to own our culture?

[smolder]

Yeah, I can't AB test against a world without copyright at all, but I think there's sufficient evidence to believe that a lot of stuff would never have gotten done without copyright to ensure it could be done gainfully.

The importance of striking a balance between incentivising creation and enriching culture was why the original copyright term was dramatically shorter. The modern term of owners life + 80 years or whatever it is, is clearly ridiculous. 20 years before entering public domain seems pretty reasonable.

There's unfortunately also some pressure against people using legitimate public domain works. E.g. youtubers getting copyright strikes for playing public domain music because it's too similar to a specific copyrighted recording.

[account42]

> Yeah, I can't AB test against a world without copyright at all, but I think there's sufficient evidence to believe that a lot of stuff would never have gotten done without copyright to ensure it could be done gainfully.

The problem is that there is also a lot of stuff that never got done because of copyright. And the extend to which works that were funded by exploiting copyright would not have been funded in any other way is also questionable.

[andsoitis]

You’re arguing that freely remixing original work will give rise to greatness that’s even better than original work?

[skinfaxi]

Isn't most creative work synthesis rather than unique whole-cloth creation? Look at what happens with software when it is open sourced and allowed to be remixed freely. Are we better or worse off because of it?

[andsoitis]

There's nothing that prevents people from remixing things that are not copyrighted and create something amazing that others are interested in or of cultural value.

With open source, I should note, its remixing is in fact governed by copyright.

[satvikpendem]

What things are not copyrighted? Anything someone makes is immediately copyrighted. If you mean take a couple hundred years old content to remix, well, I don't find that very useful and certainly not how human history has worked all this time.

[andsoitis]

You are right that in most countries (including the US) copyright protects a work automatically the moment it’s fixed in a tangible form.

I think we’ve veered a little off the original thesis where we started which is an argument that copyright is limiting the rate or breadth or level of cultural artifacts. I have to say that I find it hard to imagine a meaningfully higher volume or level than we already see today. I mean are you worried that we’re stifling creativity? I think it is abundant and the evidence is all around us.

[ck2]

I think the idea is if "AI" can solve math proofs that humans haven't for a century then if "AI" freestyles stolen art and literature then it might create something as good if not better because of resources and processing power

There might be something to that logic but art and literature doesn't obey rules like math and copyright exists to protect creators

[satvikpendem]

Yes? I don't understand how this is even a question, this is exactly how it worked throughout human history.

[andsoitis]

In what way is copyright preventing it today?

[satvikpendem]

I can't make and sell a remix of an existing IP and even in cases of free distribution it can get dicey legally.

[ragequittah]

Possibly. Sort of like how Disney remixed basically everything from existing fairy tales for decades then made it so nobody else could.

[andsoitis]

That’s not accurate. All the Disney interpretations of pre-existing fairy tales also have takes by others, whether books, theatrical adaptations, or even movies! Take Snow White as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White

So I’d be curious to hear about a counter example.

[ragequittah]

I guess I haven't looked into it much, but the chilling effect of having Disney lawyers scrutinize your project would be enough to deter most people. The slew of content coming out after these properties enter public domain from Disney is telling. But it's also just the irony that Disney used other people's stories to build their empire but then fought extremely hard so that nobody could use theirs for as long as society would possibly hold out (which in my opinion was way beyond the point of reason).

[deaton]

Go read a few fanfics and tell me you still think that theres added value.

[satvikpendem]

Quite rich coming from a creator apparently, only certain creations are deemed worthy by you, seems like it invalidates your entire stance on the sanctity of art that all these pro-copyright people seem to hold.