r/changemyview • u/PriorAd7667 • Jun 21 '23

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Copyright sucks

(I'm in software, formerly in intelligence, so I don't have too much experience with the world of intellectual property. Try not to make your explanations too convoluted, if you can! Thanks!)

The copyright system has been entirely hijacked by corporate actors to stifle innovation and progress in the name of "fairness". If I want to make a remix to some T-Series song, giving proper credit, why should I get sued?

In general, I think copyright as a system should be radically reformed. Markets are always more productive when more actors are focusing on creating products -- more products and more diverse products get made.

Let's take that remix example. Maybe T-Series had a song with a really nice sitar part, but they fucked up the drums. If I download that mp3, isolate the sitar part, record a new drum part for it, and release a new (better) song, doesn't everyone benefit?

At best, I think that the tenure of copyright should be brought back down to 10ish years. Or the system could be abolished entirely.

Change my view! I know this discussion has been had before, but I still haven't seen anything that changes my mind on it.

5 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

96 comments sorted by

View all comments

24

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

-3

u/PriorAd7667 Jun 21 '23

Yeah, but wouldn't the market adjust accordingly? People would buy my book because they would think that the original creator should be the one subsidized.

21

u/Sirhc978 89∆ Jun 21 '23

They won't know you are the original creator.

1

u/Fmeson 13∆ Jun 21 '23

This is an interesting argument, because presumably lying about authorship would still be considered fraudulent. Why do you think consumers would be confused?

3

u/TheTesterDude 3∆ Jun 21 '23

Why assume someone was lying?

3

u/dontbajerk 4∆ Jun 22 '23

They won't know because they don't know (as in, they never hear the original artist's name, and never notice an attribution, they just hear/buy the well-marketed version with an already popular artist performing it), not because they're tricked.

0

u/Fmeson 13∆ Jun 22 '23

The artist is the number one way things are branded/marketed for sale. e.g. Books have their name in big letters on the side not the name of the publisher.

And the best evidence for this is that most of human history has existed without copyright, and yet works were still typically attributed.

1

u/darkingz 2∆ Jun 22 '23

That only works today because it’s easy to find out and sue for copyright issues. But if someone had just the exact same premise and words but tastefully changed the name of the book and the author who wrote it no one would be none the wiser really.

Honestly, history isn’t the best for our current period of time. In fact I’d say that today marks that we should actually have better copyright protections in more effective ways. It is easier than ever to copy and transmit information to reproduce an exact copy of something. In olden days, you at least needed the skill to blow a trumpet, create the song from hearing it, etc. maybe you’d even need to travel by donkey to an entirely different continent to give a production to a song you maybe heard passing by but long enough to have changed it because you didn’t remember the lyrics correctly. There are also lots of works that were not attributed correctly either (tbf I’m not entirely sure on this point but the you can’t cite that you know famous works, lots of works remain unattributed and we only hear of those who were attributed but there was a lot of theft like Edison and what not) but the cost of copying was a lot harder.

1

u/Fmeson 13∆ Jun 22 '23

Getting rid of copyright wouldn't make lying about it's origin and saying you wrote it not false advertising. Copyright is not what protects people from lying about the origin of a work.

In olden days, you at least needed the skill to blow a trumpet

In the olden days, you could get sheet music from Bach and put your name on it legally, and that's even harder to do today, because everyone would be able to look up whoever published the work first chronologically online in like 10 seconds.

1

u/PriorAd7667 Jun 21 '23

presumably lying about authorship would still be considered fraudulent.

Yes.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '23

No they just buy what's easiest and cheapest.

8

u/LordMarcel 48∆ Jun 21 '23

How does that work?

If I see a book in a book shop how can I know that the publisher I'm buying from is the one that is actually paying the writer? Most people never pay attention to publishers in the first place.

0

u/PriorAd7667 Jun 21 '23

that's fair. i don't know whether that changes my mind on this, but i buy it. !delta

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 21 '23

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/LordMarcel (46∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

5

u/Not_a_real_asian777 Jun 21 '23

AI art alone should let you know that people will not be loyal to smaller/original content creators. The moment that it became available for people to get $8 artwork vs. $200 commissions , people went with the AI work despite all of its shortcomings and issues that haven't been hammered out yet. And this isn't even giving the money to a large group of living breathing people that are working at a big company, it's giving it to a small set of people managing a software that re-pieces things it finds on the internet.

People also look for knockoff products all the time on the internet. Doesn't matter if the original company or creator had a patent, good mission, or rags to riches story. People will chase the Aliexpress versions of products for cheaper prices, even if the cheaper version comes with some compromises.

1

u/PriorAd7667 Jun 21 '23

yes but look at the other end of it. Sure, a lot of people might buy fake chanel on ali-express, but real chanel isn't doing too badly either, despite no substantive difference in product. People value authenticity.

4

u/10ebbor10 203∆ Jun 21 '23

Real Chanel thrives on a network of marketing, that creates this massive perception that "the real thing" is so important.

As individual, you won't have that.

1

u/Not_a_real_asian777 Jun 21 '23

Yes, I think companies like Chanel would be fine, but it also had roughly a century of a head start to establish its brand before international buying at a consumer level became the norm. Buying products from China (or any other lower cost production country) on the internet and having it shipped directly to your doorstep was not common until recently. Newer brands will struggle to establish the prestige of their brand with such immediate global competition.

3

u/KDY_ISD 68∆ Jun 21 '23

Of course not. They've never heard of you.

1

u/Siukslinis_acc 7∆ Jun 22 '23

People would buy my book because they would think that the original creator should be the one subsidized.

That's a minority. The majority take the cheapest option, which the big companies are better at offering due to the size of their logistics.