←back to thread

No One Is in Charge at the US Copyright Office

(www.wired.com)
156 points rntn | 9 comments | 28 Jun 25 17:20 UTC | HN request time: 0.845s | source | bottom
Show context
ronsor ◴[28 Jun 25 19:19 UTC] No.44407371[source]▶
Copyright is finally being deprecated as it should be.

I'm still waiting for an update on the final removal timeline.

replies(6): >>44407662 #>>44407723 #>>44407860 #>>44407930 #>>44407946 #>>44408857 #
gametorch ◴[28 Jun 25 20:31 UTC] No.44407946[source]▶
Yes. I am an anti-copyright extremist.

May the best implementation win.

Otherwise, everyone loses out so that one individual can artificially collect rent through a government-enforced monopoly.

Accelerate.

replies(4): >>44407967 #>>44408025 #>>44408127 #>>44409236 #
ordinaryradical ◴[28 Jun 25 20:35 UTC] No.44407967[source]▶
I write novels. What am I supposed to do to earn in this new, copyright-free regime where anyone is free to “implement” my novels?
replies(2): >>44408006 #>>44408148 #
idle_zealot ◴[28 Jun 25 20:42 UTC] No.44408006[source]▶
Attract an audience and ask for patronage or get a job writing on behalf of an employer.
replies(3): >>44408081 #>>44408166 #>>44408441 #
1. heavyset_go ◴[28 Jun 25 20:59 UTC] No.44408166[source]▶
Leads to a class system where those who actually create for society are parasitically leeched on by a class whose wealth only exists because of another government enforced monopoly.
replies(3): >>44408244 #>>44408446 #>>44410215 #
2. logicchains ◴[28 Jun 25 21:10 UTC] No.44408244[source]▶
> those who actually create for society

If someone's unable to find anyone willing to pay them in advance for their work or purchase a subscription, is their work really creating much value to society?

replies(1): >>44408315 #
3. tobias3 ◴[28 Jun 25 21:27 UTC] No.44408315[source]▶
Why would someone that is somewhat constrained w.r.t. spending pay for something they would get for free?
replies(1): >>44408409 #
4. martin-t ◴[28 Jun 25 21:43 UTC] No.44408409{3}[source]▶
In fact, if _just taking_ someone else's material possessions (rather than intellectual work) was legal, why would anyone build anything they can't physically protect themselves?

A lot of the people bashing on copyright seem to have no concept of the second order effects abolishing copyright would have and no intention to game it out.

Copyright has issues. For example it protects corporations instead of individual creators and workers. But not having it means rich people who own brands and have access to massive advertising can just take someone's work and make money from it while contributing nothing of value by themselves.

5. Cheer2171 ◴[28 Jun 25 21:50 UTC] No.44408446[source]▶
It's called feudalism. The lords have a monopoly not just on the means of production, they own the full stack of society and economy in their domain.
replies(1): >>44410020 #
6. heavyset_go ◴[29 Jun 25 03:01 UTC] No.44410020[source]▶
Saying the quiet part out loud usually doesn't play well on HN, evidently
7. Dylan16807 ◴[29 Jun 25 03:48 UTC] No.44410215[source]▶
What class are you talking about here, and what monopoly?

Other than authors, the people I can think of that make money off novels are book printers and occasionally media studios? But those also depend on copyright, and other than copyright nothing makes them a monopoly.

replies(1): >>44410247 #
8. heavyset_go ◴[29 Jun 25 03:56 UTC] No.44410247[source]▶
The OP is proposing a patronage system. The world has had a long history with that.

I think we can look back on history and see what kind of class system dominated when creators had to rely on patronage to eat.

replies(1): >>44410268 #
9. Dylan16807 ◴[29 Jun 25 04:01 UTC] No.44410268{3}[source]▶
That has the causality backwards. Patronage does not lead to unequal wealth, it's the unequal wealth that leads to patronage being the only way to fund art. Getting rid of copyright would not give the wealthy more money via government enforced monopoly.

Also they're using the term "patronage" more loosely when they say to attract an audience. There's no horrible class inequality when a bunch of people are paying $1-100 a month.