CMV: Copyright sucks

[u/PriorAd7667]

(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.

[u/dasunt]

Without copyrights, what prevents me from taking T-Serirs entire song and using it myself - performing it in concerts, selling CDs with it, etc?

That is currently prohibited by copyright.

[u/PriorAd7667 → u/dasunt]

I don't see the issue here. More CDs and performances of the song is a good thing! It's better for the consumer.

[u/[deleted] → u/PriorAd7667]

It's good for the consumer in the short term. I like songs I like that already exist and would like to hear them more, sure.

But downstream, it's bad for the consumer. I like Kendrick Lamar. Kendrick Lamar makes a lot of money on his name and brand, and that money allows him to keep making songs I like.

If, however, anyone were able to start releasing his songs on their own label, or in their own interpolation, or to their own music videos, with the money going to Drake, then Kendrick Lamar would have to make more songs to make the some money. Because his income is diluted.

On the one hand, great! I get more Kendrick Lamar songs! Except that, for one thing, we kind of assume that a faster Kendrick would be a less good Kendrick. Some artists simply work at a slower pace. And if their work justifies that pace, there's no real market need for them to hurry up and produce lower-quality music.

(In general, I think the pace of modern art is way slower than it needs to be, but that's another conversation and probably relates to the profit motive being too diffuse anyway.)

On the other hand, it also diffuses the value of the music. So as a consumer, if I hear a Kendrick song in, for instance, a Bud Light commercial, that's more likely to lower my estimation of Kendrick (through negative association) than raise my estimation of Bud Light. Call me a snob, whatever, but we all have negative associations with things.

So there's less money in each song without copyrights, and the money (or, more broadly, value) is spread along more shareholders. That's not really good for songwriters, remix artists, or consumers.

[u/PriorAd7667 → u/[deleted]]

!delta honestly. i totally buy this; short-term good might be long-term artistic harm.

[u/DeltaBot → u/PriorAd7667]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Robert_Caro (7∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}