Internet Archive's digital library has been found in breach of copyright. The decision has some important implications - eviltoast

The legal ruling against the Internet Archive has come down in favour of the rights of authors.

  • blazera@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    149
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    Copyright only exists so rich people can own yet another thing they didnt make.

    • Jamie@jamie.moe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      80
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The original intent was good. You make something, you can legally ensure people can’t just copy your work and slap their name on it for profit. People could make creative works without fear of someone else ripping it away from them.

      Then Disney just kept bribing politicians to extend it to a ridiculous degree so they wouldn’t lose Mickey to public domain until they moved his likeness into their trademark, which lives as long as it’s being used actively.

      And then you have DMCA, where everyone is guilty until innocent and that whole can of worms, and DRM which is technically illegal to circumvent no matter how much time or what reason. Corporatization and the Internet turned that relatively simple and good ideas into an utter mess.

      • blazera@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        that original intent never mattered. no one’s gonna make mickey mouse shorts and people be like “oh that must be their character, not Disney’s”. Mickey became famous and profitable from Disney’s amazing animation and enjoyable writing. Without copyright, that’s still the case. Queen and David Bowie didnt fall from financial or celebrity grace because Vanilla Ice copied them, because being copied doesnt detract from you. Again, all it did was enable the rich to profit from more things they didnt make. Get rid of all of it.

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think a short copyright period is fair enough to stop corporations putting out word for word copies of your book a week after you publish it. But it doesn’t need to be more than 5-10 years, the current death+70 that the USA has pushed on the world is obscene.

          • blazera@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Any author popular enough to be copied by a corporation is already well supported by fans. People prefer to support artists they like.

            • Jamie@jamie.moe
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s not the popular authors that would be getting ripped off, it’d be the small ones. Corps would have people scouting books en masse, find one worth taking without a reputation to back themselves up, then present their own version and crush any momentum you might gain against their millions of dollars in marketing.

              • blazera@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                The small ones already dont make money from their work. If theyre undiscovered, they dont have any fans to buy their book. If they are discovered, they have fan support.

            • Womble@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think you severely underestimate the greed of corporations. If there was no copyright whatsoever there would nothing to stop, for example, amazon not publishing the new novel by a middling author and instead selling their own version where they take all the profit.