psychothumbs @ psychothumbs @lemmy.world

Posts

679

Comments

410

Joined

2 yr. ago

If you are already sharing something for free in order to gain publicity, what is the downside of others repackaging them and spreading them further? That is exactly the kind of publicity you're trying to gain.

"your proposal would harm young artists who need to share their works in order to gain publicity for something they intend to sell and sustain themselves on."

The default is already for young artists to share a lot of their work hoping to get noticed. Getting rid of copyright would be reorienting the whole system to center that experience more rather than the established artists and art producing corporations who now are in a strong enough position to charge. "Making it" would just mean that your patreon was doing gangbusters rather than selling a lot of copies of whatever your art is.

Yeah Project Gutenberg really demonstrates how this is all pretty much already built, just illegal to include recent works in. Though of course that's just books where the post copyright free library could also include all other art and culture such as tv, radio, movies, images, games, etc

Yeah even if you are pro-copyright as a way to encourage artistic creation there is no justification for how insanely long works stay under copyright. Or for banning free filesharing of copyrighted works.

If we did ever get away from copyright we'd have a very different funding model for artistic creation. More patronage, patreon, and tipping based and less payment per sale. Artists, or groups of artists, would create and share their work, and people would direct money towards those they enjoyed the most. Physical copies of anything would decline in importance with all art available for free download, and would be sold and costed more based on the effort needed to manufacture that physical object than anything to do with the original creator or creators.

As in you're implying Kamala is Hillary's protege? She is not, what gives you that idea?

You've got the wrong site, the "Intelligencer" here is a section of New York Magazine, not the Belleville Intelligencer that you linked to. Not sure how much credence I give to this media bias fact check site, but here is their page for New York Magazine (showing them to be on the left with a high level of factual reporting): https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-magazine/

I'm more open to burning the whole edifice of copyright law down than you are, but the key reform that I want that maybe we could agree on is that it should be legal to distribute coprighted works for free. No need to to let someone else try to make a profit by undercutting your sales, but if someone is willing to make and distribute copies (or ecopies) of a work to no profit for themselves they should be allowed to. What that would mean in practice if it was legal would be an online content library containing all human art and culture, freely available for download to all comers. It might hurt the income of some creators, but you'd still have a lot of other ways to make money that don't entail depriving people of that library.

Well in theory the idea is that it encourages people to create more by making doing so more lucrative. May have even made some sense back in the era before digitization.

Haha probably better to keep the tube closer to the surface of the Earth but otherwise yes.

If only we had a series of pneumatic tubes connecting all our homes, you could order something online and have it pop up right next to you minutes later.

Well not always - this story is about how for years and years there was a deadlock between the two parties at the FEC that has now been broken by a Democratic board member shocking everyone and siding with the Republicans.

Ordinary Mexicans

What do all the people downvoting it based on the title assume it means?

Traditionally both parties had to agree to get divorced if there had not been some "grounds" for the divorce that could be proved in court. That's why the classic business for old timey private detectives was proving that their client's spouse was committing adultery in order to legally justify a divorce.

Yeah I actually came across this statistic in this article about those guys wanting to make divorce much harder, which linked to the study: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/05/no-fault-divorce-gop-republicans-mainstream-podcast-dudes/

Any time a company is pushing a change this hard I know it's not something I want.

From here: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-may-2024

Thanks. Alternatively with the NY Mag you can just paste the link into a private browser window and read unlimited articles - just make sure to close and then open a new private window for each one.

Trump may try to lie and cheat his way to the presidency in the face of an electoral loss, but he'd have even less luck with that in 2024 as a challenger than he did in 2020 as the incumbent president.