Current Events > Copyrighting is harmful to creativity, change my mind.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Let me be clear: I think people should own what they make. Nobody other than the original creator should be able to claim the works that they are responsible for as their own. Nobody other than the original creator should be able to sell the works that they are responsible for. However, why should nobody be allowed to build on said works? Why should nobody be allowed to make their own Star Wars movie, just for example? I don't buy the "hurting the brand", as the Star Wars prequels have done more damage to the brand than every single piece of Star Wars porn and every single Star Wars fanfic could ever possibly do.
---

Sure, but unregulated markets in the arts are more harmful to creators.
---

You watched this video just now didn't you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4" data-time="

Yeah, I'm surprised there's no internet backlash against Disney for their crap. Copyright laws are so far gone from what they were originally intended to protect.
---

ohnoitschris posted...

You watched this video just now didn't you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4" data-time="

Yeah, I'm surprised there's no internet backlash against Disney for their crap. Copyright laws are so far gone from what they were originally intended to protect.

No, but I've seen it before.
---

You say this, but what would actually happen is individuals would create something, and then giant companies would just take the idea. The only thing preventing them from doing so would be LOLCONSUMERLOYALTY. If the company with more resources, minds, and whatever else can just steal your idea, and then utilize their resources to make a better product, then what's the point in creating something at all?

Furthermore, I don't buy the whole "building off an idea" as creativity. I think it's the exact opposite. It's people who don't have the creativity to create something loved on their own, so they take something that someone else created. Mickey Mouse would not be the brand that he is, if anyone could make Mickey Mouse stories.
---

AdviceMan posted...

You say this, but what would actually happen is individuals would create something, and then giant companies would just take the idea. The only thing preventing them from doing so would be LOLCONSUMERLOYALTY. If the company with more resources, minds, and whatever else can just steal your idea, and then utilize their resources to make a better product, then what's the point in creating something at all?

The original implementation of copyright law was designed so that nobody could just up and take your money immediately, but give you plenty of time to publish your work and make the vast majority of money you'll ever see from it.

Furthermore, I don't buy the whole "building off an idea" as creativity. I think it's the exact opposite. It's people who don't have the creativity to create something loved on their own, so they take something that someone else created. Mickey Mouse would not be the brand that he is, if anyone could make Mickey Mouse stories.

Many works today stand on the shoulders of giants. It's hard to write a story that doesn't fall in line with one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots

(also I appreciate the coincidence that a guy named Booker wrote a book about books)
---

There's a difference between creative freedom and creative anarchy. If anyone could make their own Star Wars content for example, the market would be flooded with immense levels of garbage and, for the average consumer it would probably be hard to figure out what the real stuff actually is. Look at The Asylum. They skirt copyright as close as they can to trick people, and it works. Now imagine the market is full of that stuff but it's got Star Wars written right there on the tin.

Also, especially with something like Star Wars, if everyone can make official stuff what actually counts as canon or official or, at the very least, worthwhile. There are still nerds arguing about the EU even though it was never canon to begin with.

ZMythos posted...

Sure, but unregulated markets in the arts are more harmful to creators.

market economies in general don't value the arts, and are therefore harmful to most creators
---

If anyone is interested in a compelling economic reasons based on research to be against IP, this free book by economists is very good:
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

It really helps you realize that most of what people think about IP is just popular misconceptions and don't actually do what IP proponents claim they do.
---

Let's say you come up with a cool property. You put something out with that property, get a little attention.

A big stufio sees it. Puts out a bunch of lower quality stuff under that property. It gains attention, but you don't. Your own work gets forgotten as the imitators are known for your work.

Suddenly, putting. Out something new becomes a LOT less lucrative because anyone can take it and overshadow you regardless of quality.

Copyright doesn't kill creativity, it rewards it.

OctilIery posted...

Let's say you come up with a cool property. You put something out with that property, get a little attention.

A big stufio sees it. Puts out a bunch of lower quality stuff under that property. It gains attention, but you don't. Your own work gets forgotten as the imitators are known for your work.

Suddenly, putting. Out something new becomes a LOT less lucrative because anyone can take it and overshadow you regardless of quality.

Copyright doesn't kill creativity, it rewards it.

Yeah you should read that book because that's actually the opposite of what often happens. People assume the person who comes up with an idea first gets the copyright for it and gets rewarded, but that isn't usually what happens.
---

Without copyright, people just steal other people's ideas. Which is the opposite of creativity. And now the person with the most resources really wins as they can just copy what you did but put money behind it and there's no recourse.
---

if you want to see what happens without copyright laws, take a look at China, which has the laws but it's barely enforced. bootleg merchandise is everywhere, every popular game or movie is ripped off, etc. it's not competition, it's opportunists siphoning from a popular idea or product
---

Just reduce the time of how long a copyright lasts. 15-20+ years is too long imo

most people who complain about copyrights are just entitled millennials who think they should get all their tv shows for free
---

Philoktetes posted...

most people who complain about copyrights are just entitled millennials who think they should get all their tv shows for free

We practically do with streaming services

show me a millenial who doesn't leech off of someone else's streaming service accounts and I'll show you a liar
---

What you said could also be extended other property rights besides intellectual.
---

Agreed, this is why I'll never get a good Preditor sequel to the original, or a proper shining without shelly duvall. Fuck copyright.
---

ohnoitschris posted...

Philoktetes posted...

most people who complain about copyrights are just entitled millennials who think they should get all their tv shows for free

We practically do with streaming services

show me a millenial who doesn't leech off of someone else's streaming service accounts and I'll show you a liar

I don't.

But I let people leech off mine.

TC is right.
Patent law suffices.
---

copyright laws are property laws. if you care about private property and individualism then you want copy right laws. the dispute should be length of the copyright and i'd say it should be about lifetime + 60 years based on the creator securing an royalty income for himself, his children, and then his grandchildren as the creator can meaningfully care about those 2 generations ahead of him. +90 years is stupid and should be scrapped.
---

A person's family should have no rights to creator content at all. They get an inheritance.
---

My heart is like an open highway
I break it said I did it my way
I just wanna live while I'm alive
---

Anti-245 posted...

What you said could also be extended other property rights besides intellectual.

Elaborate.
---

specialkid8 posted...

If anyone could make their own Star Wars content for example, the market would be flooded with immense levels of garbage and, for the average consumer it would probably be hard to figure out what the real stuff actually is.

Well actually...
---

It doesn't harm creativity. At worst it harms your ability to make money.

I mean there's a whole frickin bunch of creativity on that fan fiction site.
---

DevsBro posted...

It doesn't harm creativity. At worst it harms your ability to make money.

I mean there's a whole frickin bunch of creativity on that fan fiction site.

people who want to be creative are often not afforded the opportunity to do so because it's hard to make money in a creative field.
---

Garioshi posted...

Let me be clear

No

myzz7 posted...

copyright laws are property laws. if you care about private property and individualism then you want copy right laws.

Except they aren't, which is why most libertarian philsopher's oppose them. Copyright laws are anti-competition government granted monopolies that create artificial scarcity. The only reason stealing is wrong is because it deprived someone else of property. If I have a car and you steal it I can't use it anymore and would have to give up resources to replace it. That's what makes it wrong. If it instantly replaced itself it would no longer be wrong. Ideas aren't scarce and therefore there is nothing wrong with "stealing" an idea. The problem is companies want to make more money than the market would naturally allow so they artificially create scarcity where it isn't and get a government granted monopoly in order to extract more profit. Everyone other than the company loses in this case and the economy is by definition less efficient because you are now devoting scarce resources to purchase things that are not actually scarce and have an artificial market value.
---