this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2023
205 points (100.0% liked)
Chat
7483 readers
14 users here now
Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think copyright is most valuable as a tool to protect someone's work from plagiarism. Preventing others from copying your work without attribution is a good thing. Using copyright to block the derivative or transformative work others make is counterproductive. I like the phrase "rising tides lifts all boats".
I think rules on fair use should be far more forgiving than they currently are. You should be able to protect complete concepts, like a unique character, setting, or story, but you can't stop others from modifying or being inspired by someone's ideas.
I also think corporations or private entities should never be able to own copyright. Copyright must be owned by a person or a group of people (the makers/authors). Ownership of copyright shouldn't be able to be transferable, but you can give permission to use the copyright like a normal license or contract would. That means copyright ends when the last owner does, and the work enters public domain.
Edit corrected with attribution to without attribution
Do you think this would impact R&D for corporations? ie if I’m a successful pharma company, I’m not going to pour money into research just for other companies to use it for “free” afterwards. Essentially it would hurt their incentive to create and invent.
You are thinking of a patent, which protects a process or way of doing something. Copyright protects creative works.
This makes WAY more sense. Thanks for the clarification!