this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
179 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

34889 readers
164 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] blazera@kbin.social 91 points 1 year ago (1 children)

obligatory copyright only exists so rich people can own more things they didnt create

[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

There should be a copyright system that grants copyright only to those individuals who create the thing, not the corporations that published the thing.

I'm sure there's someone who will point out why that is a bad idea, but collective ownership seems like it would be a better way to apply takedown notices more appropriately. A takedown order needs to be voted on by the owners of the thing being potentially infringed upon and if the majority does not think that something violates copyright, then the takedown notice will not be sent.

[–] waspentalive@lemmy.one 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And then only to the human creator who intends to bring the item to market. No more patent trolls.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's patent law, which is something different entirely. Copyright only covers actual works, like books, video games, and TV shows, so there's really no problem with patent trolls here. Patent law is a completely different set of problems.

The real issue is the DMCA, and YouTube's extremely loose acceptance requirements for a copyright claim. Basically, pretty much anyone can issue a copyright strike without actually providing proof that they own the work in the video, so the bar is really low.

[–] waspentalive@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago

Yes, I did a confuse. You are right. But Patent Trolls suck too.

[–] mihnt@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

IANAL but I think some of the problem is people are under the employ of said company when they create said thing and they have contracts that are setup that by default make that the company's IP over the individual.

I think the only issue here is how long copyright lasts. Originally, it was much shorter:

The length of copyright established by the Founding Fathers was 14 years, plus the ability to renew it one time, for 14 more. 40 years later, the initial term was changed to 28 years.

And now it's 95 years, or the life of the author + 70 years, whichever is shorter. If we went back to the original copyright duration, we probably wouldn't have this issue, especially if the renewal required some proof of need.

I don't think the problem is corporations owning copyright, but how long copyright lasts.