people with more money than they'll ever spend complaining about theoretical revenue for something they didnt make. Abolish copyright.
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
149 points (98.1% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54500 readers
869 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"John Larkin" by John Larkin only has two copies in existence, one by his widow and the other by an unknown person. If that name seems unfamiliar, it's because he later became more famous as Scatman John.
It was recorded in 1986 but due to current US copyright law, it won't enter public domain until December 3, 2069.
There's a few copies floating around on YouTube and a FLAC version as a torrent.
As a published author, I have to say that yes, indeed, copyright laws have turned corporations into participants in a "copyright industry." It's true that a creator's livelihood relies on people buying their work. It's also true that a creator's livelihood depends on the dissemination of their creations. The more you're in circulation, the better off you will be. Corporate greed and defending the bottom line under copyright law is getting ridiculous. It really puts limits on the scope of a creator's success. This is why there are creators out there like me who do not mind piracy. When I'm dead, if I wrote something important, I hope future people will be able to see it. I'm pretty sure that whatever I wrote isn't all that significant, but who knows? Maybe it will be. What I'm getting at: It's becoming a real problem for documenting the history of human material culture, when you think about it. Corporations are controlling and guarding the human material culture. Their goals work contrary to the goal of the historians and archaeologists of the future. Corporate greed is preventing future people from understanding their past.
I'd add that important or not, it's great as an artist to know that you'll touch anyone ! :) It's not always about history or grand things it's also about human feelings and spreading any message really !
When these studios shut down all we will have left will be from pirates.
"John Larkin" by John Larkin only has two copies in existence, one by his widow and the other by an unknown person. If that name seems unfamiliar, it's because he later became more famous as Scatman John.
It was recorded in 1986 but due to current US copyright law, it won't enter public domain until December 3, 2069.
There's a few copies floating around on YouTube and a FLAC version as a torrent. Pirates are keeping his legacy as a jazz performer alive.
Youtube is a pretty good example of where the copywrite striking has gone absolutely bonkers. People have to strike their own videos so ensure that a strike against them won't just take all of their ad revenue.
I think you mean claim. Strikes are on the channel and are much worse for the creator.
I used to make stuff and put it on YouTube, I didn't monetize it because it was mostly for fun and I didn't want to annoy people with ads. Anyway, one of my videos had some (very provably) public domain music in it which some bot flagged for copyright infrigement.
YouTube not only immediately sided with the bot, they also turned on monetization on my video without my consent so they could send my non-existent ad revenue to whoever flagged it.
I've contested these things before, but it takes ages and there's nothing to stop another bot from just doing the same thing again immediately anyway, so that was the last straw and I just took everything down and closed my channel.
Fuck YouTube.