this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
791 points (99.5% liked)
Games
16927 readers
1108 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why the fuck do they make money 15 years after doing the work though? Build a house, you get paid for the house. Write a song? Infinite money.
15 years? What about 80 years? There are movies from the 40s that are still under copyright.
Copyright is generally a good idea. There has to be some level of restriction, otherwise infinite copies of your art immediately show up and you cant make a living.
On the flipside, it harms the industry at large if the copyright is too long. There is no reason why a corporate entity should be making royalties on something long after it's creator has died.
So, where is the middle point? What is a good length of time to let an artist exclusively sell their art without fear of someone undercutting them as soon as they make something? Personally, i think the US figured out the sweet spot before all the changes. 14 years, plus a single 14 year extension you have to register. 28 years is enough time that you can make a career, but also not long enough to harm the creative process or prevent art from reaching the masses while its relevant.
Consider the following:
One day we manage to reach the pinnacle of invention - we create the replicator from Star Trek. We can suddenly bring immense amounts of anything we want for everyone in the world, for very little energy (caveat: I don't know enough about Star Trek lore to know this to be true).
Now, this machine would certainly make a whole lot of business models redundant - farming, factory work, you name it - they would all no longer be able to make a living doing what they did before this invention existed.
Now for the moral question - should the fact that this invention will harm certain groups' way of life be considered enough of a motivation to prohibit the use of this invention? Despite the immense wealth we could bring upon the world?
Take a pause to form an opinion on the subject.
Now that you've formed an opinion on the replicator - consider that we already have replicators for all types of digital media. It can be infinitely replicated for trivial amounts of energy. Access to the library of all cataloged information in the world is merely a matter of bandwidth.
Now, should the fact that groups relying on copyright protection for their way of life be considered reason enough to prohibit the use of the information replicator?
To me, the answer is clear. The problem of artists, authors, actors, programmers and so on not being able to make money as easily without copyright protection does not warrant depriving the people of the world from access to the information replicator. What we should focus on is to find another model under which someone creating information can sustain themselves.
That's exactly the problem.
Under the current system, people that produce creative works as their job are forced to monetize them. Until we live in a post-scarcity world where everyone's needs are met, like Star Trek, we have to deal with capitalist problems. To say otherwise is to ensure a system where artists and authors are unable to survive. Currently, the copyright system is good enough™ that creating art can be profitable enough that they are not destitute.
Simply because the technology exists to endlessly replicate and distribute art, regardless of the wishes of the artist (for which it is already frequently used, if you look at piracy channels) does not mean that it should be used with reckless abandon.
the good thing about copyright is that it's the only thing that might protect an individual against a giant company to steal someone's work and drown it with an insanely more marketed version to make money off of someone else's work without compensating them. i mean they already do that as best they can but it would be worse without copyright protections.
on the other hand i would severely limit copyrights in general, and even more for publishers and companies. I'd much rather individuals retain rights to IP than companies.
i realize there are some problems that might arise from such a system but it would be much less significant than the BS we have today.
but wait, oh no, that means Sony shouldn't have exclusive rights to churn out another vaguely spider-man-related shit stain! how will our culture survive this?
it'll be fine.
It’s not always that simple. If I write a song, then I don’t want my song to be used in a big budget Hollywood production without me getting a dime.
Hey, what's up with the big bold blue letters?
You can change the display of your username on the Web version of Lemmy and it accepts emojis.
D: