-36
DBZer0 has begun banning people simply for believing in the concept of copyright (archive.ph)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/fediverselore@lemmy.ca
73 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Advocating piracy is one thing, but now banning people for believing in copyright? That's like banning people for following the law. That is banning people for following the law. What gives? And to think a while ago I declared I wouldn't have any reason to not take their bans (or the motives behind them) seriously.

Are we trying to get world governments to ban Lemmy (or, worse, the fediverse)? Love the administrative decisions or hate them, such decisions will drag down the whole fediverse. Typically sites are defederated to protect the sites defederating them from liability. Will this be an example, or does this, out of convenience, not apply? Are we forgetting a large portion of the fediverse's demographics consist of artists trying to make a damn living?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  1. Encourage credit to be given, when people often otherwise not give credit

Even with copyright, musicians steal parts from each other all the time. Same with other art forms. Taking small parts of other people's art is normal and how art gets created. And there are social consequences even under capitalism to stealing an entire work without credit which are less formal than legal ones, but just as important for artists looking to keep doing art.

  1. Prevent people from making money from something that is given away for free

... this is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, I would happily buy a copy of Mutual Aid by Kropotkin even if Kropotkin or his descendants don't get compensated because someone put in the work to print the book.

  1. Prevent people from making fake versions of a book, like what happened to the fifth Harry Potter book

Again, there are social and legal consequences even under capitalism for selling people things under false pretenses.

  1. Through all of this maintain incentive for artists to make art

I 1000% do not want to consume art created primarily for profit. Profit-driven art is soulless corpo-trash. It takes up air that could be used by serious organic artists. Driving out profit-seeking behavior is strictly positive IMO. I want to drive out profit-seeking behavior everywhere forever, but art is a great place to start.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The artist doesn't need to be an artist-for-profit for it to apply. They just need to be someone who can say they spent all day on an art piece. The incentive for that goes away when it amounts to something that other people can enjoy without any boundaries.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I spent literal months on my album when I finally finished it. I spent a whole month going through the drum track note by note adjusting each hit so it was just how I wanted it to sound. I reamped my guitars with hundreds of dollars of gear, actually positioned physical microphones and moved real air to get the sound I wanted. The incentive for that effort was solely to produce the product and have something I could share with people. Yeah getting money here and there is nice, but the real motivation was to actually do the thing for its own sake.

    And one of the most consistent stories I hear from musicians is that becoming financially dependent on your art places a severe boundary on what kind of art you're allowed to produce. For example, if you're a death metal band and you make your money off death metal, you might have to make a couple more albums of death metal even if, in your heart of hearts, you want to make prog rock now, just to put food on the table.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent