it's so fucking wild to me that people who don't work for a multinational corporation think that copyright law protects them at all. like no independent artist has the resources to *actually* go after copyright infringement. copyright is mere security theater for "intellectual property," a phrase so cursed i cannot believe we have normalized it

i saw someone (an otherwise intelligent person) say that even if we decommodified necessities so artists don't need to sell their work to survive that copyright would still be needed to protect artists from having their work stolen by large corporations, and it is an absolutely out of control lack of imagination that you can imagine a world where we've decommodified housing, food, water, electricity, clothing, and more, but in that world you still assume we'd have large corporations.

Show thread

copyright is a fucking hack, it's a fucking admission that the market is fake and doesn't make any sense at all so we had to make up this completely nonsense idea that you can "own" a cultural object, and that the people who are credited with creating cultural objects should have absolute control over how those cultural objects are used.

Show thread

this is not how culture works!!! artists do not create alone, their creations are the products of their society and culture and therefore belong to that society and culture!! the ongoing "problems" with people illegally sampling, uploading full albums to youtube, etc etc is not an issue of *entitlement*, as i so often see it phrased, it is *people claiming what is rightfully theirs*

Show thread

if you can't make a living when people """"steal"""" your art, that's not a problem with """"theft,"""" the problem is you live in a society where you are required to turn culture into property in order to justify your right to exist!! that's what's fucked up!!! not people posting your book online for free!!

Show thread

while i despise him for spelling it "videogames" instead of "video games," thecatamites wrote a blog post about this recently that also includes some great observations about already existing spaces where people release art for free:

Show thread

and similarly, people concern trolling about stuff like OpenAI Jukebox and things like it are just people handwringing about sampling all over again. culture does not exist to be pristinely observed for all time perfectly in the form the artist intended, it exists to be digested, recombined, absorbed, transformed, reproduced, destroyed, recreated, and all manner of other things! the commodification of art for the sake of "the market" destroys the relationship of people to their culture.

Show thread

@prophet_goddess I like the concept of abolishing copyright, but I don't really see how it helps folks like struggling artists right now.

@Anarkat it is totally true that just abolishing copyright law and changing nothing else would be a disaster, but the point i am making is not to propose that we just abolish copyright and change nothing else, i think if you read what i wrote the point is that copyright is a symptom of capitalism that destroys our relationship to the cultures we live in.

@Anarkat the specific thing that i made this thread in response to was the internet archive lawsuit, which cut off access to culture for millions of people in favor of like, hypothetically but not actually helping artists, and is a great example of how artists buy into the copyright system even though it doesn't benefit them and simply lines the pockets of record labels/publishing houses/etc

@prophet_goddess @Anarkat

Intellectual Property has worse faces than copyright on art - Patents.

Especially pharmaceutical patents.

They are making molecules and natural numbers illegal for people to use. It's so utterly insane that the scientist in me can't even begin to...

@prophet_goddess see, that's not what copyright was supposed to do. The issue isn't copyright as a concept, it's that we've turned it into ownership—it certainly didn't start that way

Copyright as a concept is the idea that people who create things should have a *limited* right to control making copies of that work, after which is passes into the public domain

It was not ever intended to stop artists from referencing each other, building on others' ideas, and so on. It's been massively perverted into a tool of corps, and comes very near to allowing copyright holders ownership of ideas, which is 180° from its intent

@prophet_goddess yeah literally the only people with the resources needed to go after someone infringing on their copyrights are the ones who wouldn't need to anyway

@prophet_goddess All intellectual property mecanisms work only well for the big multinational companies. All small and medium entitites, independent inventors, small and medium start-ups, small independent artists, are fucked up, can't have actualky access to justice, too expansive, or corruption from multinationals prevent them from gathering the proofs necessary for complaints. Same for Antitrust laws.

I know what I am talking about for having filled an international antitrust

@prophet_goddess complaints based on standardization rules for standard essential patents against an international corruption cartel composed of Amazon and Postal + Logistic operators in 8 countries (USA, Canada, UK+IR, Germany, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Luxembourg).

The laws more or less work for the big ones, but never for the smalls, when opposed to big ones. Never.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

single-user instance for @prophet_goddess.