• FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Alright but Archiving is already an exception to most laws (clearly not well enforced seeing what happened to the IA) and your proposal would harm new artists who need to share their works in order to gain publicity for something they intend to sell and sustain themselves on.

    • psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      “your proposal would harm young artists who need to share their works in order to gain publicity for something they intend to sell and sustain themselves on.”

      The default is already for young artists to share a lot of their work hoping to get noticed. Getting rid of copyright would be reorienting the whole system to center that experience more rather than the established artists and art producing corporations who now are in a strong enough position to charge. “Making it” would just mean that your patreon was doing gangbusters rather than selling a lot of copies of whatever your art is.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        No, it would empower anybody, especially corporations, to take the new artists’ ideas and work and repackage them as an item for sale to others. Anything you share would not be covered by copyright and therefor no longer be your property.

        Individuals cannot compete with organizations.

        • psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          If you are already sharing something for free in order to gain publicity, what is the downside of others repackaging them and spreading them further? That is exactly the kind of publicity you’re trying to gain.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Pretty sure that’s a basic function of a publicly operated archive, but for sure there was a lot of nuance.

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          That’s the point, though. The law is very clear that mass distributing wholesale copyrighted works isn’t fair use. Digitizing it was the part justified by fair use “archival”. Distribution isn’t.

          You have to start over and throw out the old laws. Right now there’s no framework to own a file at all (outside of actually holding the copyright). It’s always a license.