← Back to context

Comment by Zambyte

2 years ago

I also think that copyright limits art and its spread to only what is profitable. Few people currently care about art that doesn't make any money. A world without copyright would be a world where people appreciate art for what it expresses, not how many dollars it rakes in.

It's also worth noting that copyright applies outside of artistic endeavors, such as software. I think this is a pure hindrance to technical progress. Imagine if it was illegal for your friend to fix your car without the manufacturers consent. That is the world we live in with software copyright right now. It's absurd. People should be charging to write software (real scarcity: labor) not distribute it (artificial scarcity: licenses).

3 comments

Zambyte

Reply
CaptainFever  2 years ago

To be fair, I think making art for money is fine, but I agree with your second paragraph in which the actually scarce thing (e.g. labour) is the one that should be monetised, not artificial scarcity.

In fact, commissions artists are doing exactly that. Same with patreon which seems to be really popular, and crowdfunding for the bigger projects.

numpad0  2 years ago

> Few people currently care about art that doesn't make any money.

I don't think this to be the case at all. How often are GPL violations settled with compensation? How's compensation framework talks go with respect to generative AIs?

All the copyright holders care is control over you - not money.