End all copyrights
Posted by Top-Requirement-2102@reddit | CrazyIdeas | View on Reddit | 62 comments
Humans invented copyright law, but I am not convinced it has been a net positive. It seems to contribute to wealth disparity while also holding back the free flow of ideas.
Sure, there would be chaos at first as entire media empires collapse, but what would emerge from the rubble, especially as technology democratizes high quality production?
TheRoadsMustRoll@reddit
that's because you aren't a published author.
the point was to allow people to share ideas without them being stolen. as a result millions of books and songs are shared publicly and the writers get full credit. that's a net positive both for the writers and the public.
Top-Requirement-2102@reddit (OP)
I am a published author, both in books and software. My livelihood depends on the fact that the company that pays me fiercely defends their copyrights. I'm not saying there is no benefit to copyright law. I feed my family with copyright protected work. What I am asking is what the world might be like if ideas and created works were always public domain. We would obviously still survive, but how would our society change? Is the copyright system really as beneficial as we think it is? How do we know?
TheRoadsMustRoll@reddit
that is in contrast to your original post where you wrote: "I am not convinced it has been a net positive." so. feeding your family isn't a net positive?
anybody can publish in the public domain right now just like anybody can self-publish. one of the benefits of publishing copyrighted material is the infrastructure of distribution from a publishing house (without which your work may never be known.)
but name the book you published and tell me why you chose not to publish it under a public domain license.
Top-Requirement-2102@reddit (OP)
I suspect that copyrights increase wealth disparity, so while I can feed my family, maybe hundreds have suffered in some way? I don't know for sure, just playing.
On a broader scope, copyrights and patents limit the free use of really great ideas. How much has humanity been held back because we punish people who have really good ideas to extend another's work? I have no idea, and it's not clear to me because all we can really do is a very limited thought experiment.
What strikes me about copyright law is how unnatural it must appear to someone from say a tribal society. Laws against stealing and killing make sense, but a law that says you can't sing another person's song without the permission? That seems strange to me, so I wonder about it.
I published the book under a pen name, mostly to play with the art form. I used Amazon because it's a well known platform and I wanted to try it. I don't remember a public license option.
I also wanted to possibly make some money, but that's because I am largely bought into the copyright world we live in. This thread is me challenging myself by seeing what happens if I question my assumptions. I've seen a lot of people here argue hard for the status quo, but haven't seen much in the way of playing with the idea. Will you play with the idea? Just pretend we never invented copyright law. How would our world be different?
TheRoadsMustRoll@reddit
i know for sure that nobody suffered in any way because somebody published a book. if people couldn't publish medical papers in journals and have them distributed then the field of medicine would decline severely and that would cause suffering. thankfully, copyrights provide authors and journals access to the wider world of medicine and science.
on the contrary. copyrights are free and legally protect the author. you won't find a broader set of international legal protections at such a low cost.
you clearly aren't the least bit familiar with any of these concepts. good luck.
Atechiman@reddit
Would you have written either the books or the software if there wasn't copyright? What percentage of software would not?
If you did write the software anyway would you be as open with the source code or would it be a more closely guarded secret?
Top-Requirement-2102@reddit (OP)
Yes. Most of my work I create because I like the act of creating it. I have dozens of public projects on github. I wrote a game back in the 90s that got a million downloads, I still get fan mail about it, but never made a penny. I just did it for fun.
The software I write for money, that is protected by copyright feeds my family, but it's not the same as the works I create for the love of it.
I wonder if copyrights are a necessary tool to enable this way of life I live, or if some other better system might emerge if most things existed because people just wanted them to exist.
A thought experiment: imagine that I created an interesting and unique game. If I wanted to make money from it without the protection of copyrights, I couldn't likely do it if it were a one hit wonder. I would have to make money from my name as a creator and future-sell work via patrons or a service such as Kickstarter. The first game might not make so much money, but if I can show my skill, I could get my fans to invest in my next work. Yes, this is also a money incentive, but it feels different than what we get with copyrights. Copyrights encourage a mentality of "make what fans say they want" vs "encore!"
Going further, anyone redistribution my work is not going to get rich. They will make a little money, but they won't be robbing me because my money comes front loaded. They would actually be helping me by disseminating my work widely.
If someone wanted to riff on my work... again, not robbing me, and again not going to make a lot of money unless they really do a better job, then they should get money for being more skilled. I might see an advantage in teaming up with that person.
.... just playing around with the idea. Before you shoot holes in it, which will be easy to do, play with it yourself. What could happen if ideas were free?
withac2@reddit
Exactly. Also, the length of time is related to making sure the heirs of the authors are covered as well. Most authors would rather have their heirs have control that would not only benefit them, but could prevent some hack from just randomly taking the characters and making up their own stories, or prevent any unauthorized prequels/sequels.
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
bloodhound83@reddit
How about in areas like books and software and maybe music?
Basically allowing anyone to sell the finished product might discourage the creators in the first place, or make it financially too risky.
Top-Requirement-2102@reddit (OP)
And yet open source exists. And yet companies regularly give away software because they sell something that is difficult to copy.
I'm not arguing that there won't be trouble, I am asking what will eventually emerge when the artificially of copyrights disappears and ideas belong to all of humanity.
bloodhound83@reddit
Open source is not automatically free from copyright, that depends on the licensee used.
Do you think there would be the same account of software as today if large companies cannot guarantee they own it after their investment?
Top-Requirement-2102@reddit (OP)
That's the question I am asking. Let your brain ponder it for a few minutes. Suspend disbelief long enough to really ask what might happen. Can people make money without copyrights? How would ot work? Do people need to make money to create useful stuff for the public?
bloodhound83@reddit
Possible. People probably would still buy from them, but probably less if the person next door sells the exact same thing. Maybe support in terms of software. But I can't see the profit margins not shrinking.
No. And there is plenty of stuff people do for free and I don't think that would change. But how about places where a lot of investment is needed, like medicine. They still need to generate money to finance that. Or musician, would every musician still make music if they can't control sales? Don't think so.
Top-Requirement-2102@reddit (OP)
Some people think the current medical system incents large companies that make different versions of the same expensive medicine that treats symptoms instead of cures disease. Maybe without ip protection the incentive would be to research lower cost drugs that cure?
Maybe without copyrights music would become more communal, like it was before copyrights?
bloodhound83@reddit
Sure, especially if the profit margin is cut. But we might be missing out because the research wouldn't even be started
Quite possible. But would people prefer it that way?
Top-Requirement-2102@reddit (OP)
I'd like to see an analysis of what big pharma really gets us. I think we could get a lot further funding studies of how to be generally healthy with natural foods, but big pharma wouldn't want to fund that because the current system disincentivizes it.
I've enjoyed listening to recorded music all my life along with large live concerts. I also enjoy karaoke and In the last two days I've sat in listening to a string quartet practice as well as jammed with another couple of musicians. My favorite, by far, is jamming, followed by small performances, then karaoke.
Long ago when music was communal, everyone had instruments and knew how to participate. I think the mass produced music reduces participation to the few who do it well. Maybe without copyright the music skill of the average Joe would go up, along with enjoyment.
yellowodontamachus@reddit
It's interesting to think about how music might thrive in a copyright-free world. Imagine neighborhoods buzzing with live jams, communal sing-alongs, and artist collaborations like back in the day. My jam sessions are my go-to—way better vibe than huge concerts.
In medicine, a shift away from IP could steer us towards genuine health innovations, though strategic financial planning like Aritas Advisors offers could be crucial to keep R&D viable. This connects to how other models, like open-source software or Kickstarter campaigns, support creativity while keeping the dough flowing. Could be a wild ride!
EthanStrayer@reddit
“Media empires would collapse.”
Except media empires, with huge access to resources, budget, talent, and distribution no longer need to pay people to license their work. “High quality production” and the ability to make them require a lot more than access to copy written material.
Top-Requirement-2102@reddit (OP)
All this assumes that the world is made better by mega-sized entertainment. Is it? Is a taylor swift concert better than the music we enjoyed producing ourselves way back before copyrights? Has mega production produced more talent or less talent? More enjoyment or less enjoyment?
StarChild413@reddit
are you under the impression no copyright would un-famous Taylor Swift (and let me guess, anyone else popular you hate/find cringy) and bring music literally back to what it was before copyright law in more than just its freedom of being shared or w/e
Top-Requirement-2102@reddit (OP)
That's fair. There were superstars throughout history when there was no such thing as copyright.
I like Taylor Swift. My question has more to do with how the nature of her entertainment would change without copyrights. It is my understanding that tours tend to cost a bunch and are supported by recorded music sales. For mega stars, that might be different, but if music sales were no longer a source of income, it might still affect the concerts somehow.
Something I think might happen is that we would see songs become popular over any particular entertainer. That would probably change the nature and content of the songs themselves. Would that be wanted? I dont know, but it is interesting to think about.
EthanStrayer@reddit
It’s not assuming the world is made better by mega sized entertainment. It is just going off of the realities that mega-sized entertainment exists, and there is an industry with access to resources to produce and market high production value art as products.
Losing copyright isn’t going to make it so people without those resources can compete with the industry that has them.
Top-Requirement-2102@reddit (OP)
So what do you think would happen? How would entertainment change?
EthanStrayer@reddit
I think the huge media companies would use it to take more advantage of aspiring artists and their teams of lawyers would find different ways to scare people off of their IP.
Top-Requirement-2102@reddit (OP)
I'm assuming we abolish laws to protect ip
EthanStrayer@reddit
I understand. Which is why I said “lawyers will find different ways of protecting IP”
Even if they aren’t legitimate. Moving to a state without slap suit laws and filing a bunch of law suits that would require a huge amount of time and resources to defend, even if they are merit less, would scare off a lot of independent creators.
StarChild413@reddit
but how do you determine what's canon or does everything fantasy or sci-fi just canonize the multiverse so that everyone's fan works are as equally canon it's just the company that originally made the work is just gonna follow one timeline in particular
EthanStrayer@reddit
There have been multiple franchises lately that have made sequels that ignore previous sequels. Sounds like a problem for super fans and they can have delightful arguments about what’s canon. I’m sure it’d take up a lot of time on Reddit discussing it and making guides…
TirelessGuardian@reddit
But then you can immediately steal their high quality movie and sell it yourself for cheaper than Disney and make money off of their work effort.
EthanStrayer@reddit
Why would I buy it from you when it shows up as part of my Disney+ subscription? And if I’m not going to get it there I’ll just pirate it and not pay you anything either.
TirelessGuardian@reddit
At that point why even bother subbing to D+?
EthanStrayer@reddit
Convenience. Easy access to separate profiles with parental controls. Same reasons I sub now.
But if I’m not gonna pay the person that made a movie to watch it I’m definitely not gonna pay someone who pirated it.
StarChild413@reddit
if I understand copyright law correctly what about this hypothetical scenario (I think about stuff like this as I am sorta a screenwriter (not sure if I should say I am one since nothing's been picked up but I can't say I'm an aspiring one as I've actually written scripts)); what if I make a TV series or movie series where a character's gayness is intended to only be canonically revealed in a later installment for whatever plot reason and no attention is paid to that character's sexuality/love-life beforehand, and if there was no copyright what if someone wrote fanfic (if that'd even still be a relevant term with no copyright) where the character was in a straight romance and then claimed the gay reveal was me gaywashing the character because if there's no copyright to distinguish official canon his fic's depiction of the character's sexuality counts as as close as there can be to a canon one since it came before the reveal
Top-Requirement-2102@reddit (OP)
Even if there were no copyrights, people would still be interested in authorship. I think there are already services to pay a fee to prove authorship, similar to how people pay for certificates on the web.
However, we are still in the zone of assumptions around the current system. Remember that most of human history had no copyrights, but there were still poems, songs, stories, and plays published all over the world. Copyright law creates different kinds of incentives that yield different behavior. Is our world really better for having copyright law, or are we holding ourselves back in some way that is hard to see?
green_meklar@reddit
More than that, it is clearly a terrible idea that should never have been implemented in the first place, and it can't die soon enough. I'm completely serious. Fuck artificial scarcity.
gtbot2007@reddit
So just allow people to copy other peoples work? If I make a book someone can just write a copy that takes all my ideas? If I make a song someone can just plagiarize it?
Top-Requirement-2102@reddit (OP)
Yes, this is exactly the question. Suspend any automatic bias for a minute and play around with the idea. What would emerge if all ideas were public domain?
gtbot2007@reddit
Large corporations that have money would take peoples ideas and make them "better" (not not really) and then mass advertise them to the people while the person who had the idea gets nothing
Top-Requirement-2102@reddit (OP)
Could large corporations like that exist without copyright protection?
gtbot2007@reddit
Why wouldn’t they? They don’t need protection because they have the money to promote themselves so no one sees the competition
Top-Requirement-2102@reddit (OP)
Today companies spend a lot of money on their armies of lawyers to go after small copyright infringement. This suggests that it is hard to keep up such a big company without the law to protect and support that activity. Also, does brand always beat low cost? Maybe if yhe brand means high quality, but that distinct doesn't exist in a world of exact copies. I don't see how big companies could stay big without the law making it possible.
gtbot2007@reddit
They do that to make more money. In fact without copyright law they would be doing the things that they are currently stoping the other people from doing with the lawyers
Top-Requirement-2102@reddit (OP)
So then you agree this is a crazy idea?
gtbot2007@reddit
Crazy bad, yes
veryblocky@reddit
I can honestly see a benefit of copyright for a short time after creation, but the current system offers protection for far too long. Which does result in the downsides you mentioned.
I really believe they should change the time before a work enters the public domain, reducing it massively. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for it to be the same length of time as a patent. Which lasts a maximum of 20 years.
UrbanCyclerPT@reddit
Agreed. And for me regarding medicines it should be less than 5 years
Kirdissir@reddit
With medicine you mean patents and not copyright.
What is the incentive for a company to come up with a new drug? Drugs in Germany, if you get a patent, are the only product that get 5 extra years. The are horrendous costs and trials involved. All of the stages you have to pass roughly take you 3 to 5 years.
UrbanCyclerPT@reddit
They would find a way. Don't worry about companies not innovating. That is neoliberal speech that isn't true at all. 5 years is enough This would be the incentive to keep on innovating
Top-Requirement-2102@reddit (OP)
Some might say that the current system incents the production of huge drug companies who spend their time patenting drugs that don't heal. Perhaps without this system, the medicines that win in the market are more likely to be simple and curative.
irlharvey@reddit
i’m pro “copyright”, to a degree. i don’t think people should be allowed to sell a word-for-word copy of your work, or big chunks of your work, to make money, especially while you’re still alive. but i hate “intellectual property”, if that’s a distinction that makes sense to make. i hate that someone can “own” a vibe, or the idea of a big-gloved cartoon mouse, or a superhero named “superman”. that’s so stupid. i’m all for getting rid of that.
Top-Requirement-2102@reddit (OP)
Yes, there is there is a weird artificiality to it all and I think is separates us from each other. I think we might have a lot more in person, live entertainment if there was no copyrighting.
NikonShooter_PJS@reddit
Spoken like someone who has shit ideas and can’t create anything for themselves but is absolutely convinced “I should be able to make a Batman movie to! It would be so good!”
It wouldn’t. It would suck.
Top-Requirement-2102@reddit (OP)
Oh for sure, my batman movie would suck SO HARD. I don't even want to think about it. But maybe my Last Airbender movie might be better than the one that got made. Maybe some star wars fans could make a better story than Disney.
The larger question is if the world is better or worse because of blockbuster creations from media empires. Is it better? How do we know? What might emerge if all ideas became public domain, the way it used to be before we invented copyrights?
Olde94@reddit
I think it would reduce the creativity and general quality as anything popular would be copied and sold cheaper. Original creators would have less incentive to make said thing as their potential profit would be less
Top-Requirement-2102@reddit (OP)
This assumes that profit incentives create better works. Do they? What can we say about works that exist because the creator just wanted them to exist? Is our world better overall because copyrights make it easier for authors to get rich, or are we flooded which a bunch of uninspired material created for money?
Sirlacker@reddit
From the first paragraph, are you getting copyright and patent mixed up?
I'm all for having my work, be my work for the remainder of my life and then some to potentially provide my kids some income from it. Passing off a song you remade note for note or a book word for word as your own isn't going to really do much.
However if we're talking about patents, I think patents are fine for the 20yr span but with an added clause of they must be in use too. I hate that companies patent genuinely good things or potentially good things and then do fuck all with it and anyone who could improve the design or functionality can't do jack shit about it. You should be able to dispute a patent on the grounds that it's not been used for x amount of time there-fore it's open to the public or something.
Top-Requirement-2102@reddit (OP)
I'm talking about copyrights here, but it's worth asking about patents too. I've worked for companies with huge patent portfolios and I've filed for patents myself. It isn't clear to me that patents are all that helpful to even the companies that have them. So many patents are shit patents that often exist merely to exhaust the legal attacks of competitors with countersuits. It is a rare patent that is truly novel AND makes a ton of money for the holder. Also for companies that move quickly, it would be extremely difficult for competitors to keep up even if they could copy the patent. This is why trade secrets have so much more value, IMO.
So, the question still stands for both patents and copyrights: do they make the world a better place? How do we know? What would emerge if suddenly all ideas were public domain?
Wizard_of_Claus@reddit
More blatant copying of other people's creations. That's pretty much it. Besides, it's not like anyone can't use other people's copyrighted material. They just can't make money off it without permission.
Squish_the_android@reddit
This isn't how that works. The making money part doesn't matter.
That being said, a lot of copyright owners turn a blind eye to fan works because there's not much to gain by angering the customer too much.
gravity_kills@reddit
I think there's a lot of evidence that it's generally good, but that it's been taken too far. Limit it to something reasonable like 10 years and nearly all the downsides go away, and it's mostly just the super successful creators or the heirs of dead people who come out behind (and giant corporations hoarding enormous catalogs of purchased rights, which is really why things don't change).