If that's the case, then there's not much financial incentive to keep the work under copyright anyway, so why is copyright needed?
And there's no real reason to charge a registration fee. A searchable online registration system can be setup with very little overhead by the government. You could also charge a single fee for a group of works. There's ways to manage this without shouting "what about the starving artists!" It's not about extracting money for copyright - it's about having a way to know what is protected and what isn't.
Simply claiming fair use is not the same as actual fair use.
If people like your paintings so much that they want to copy them, then you should be able to command a higher price for your paintings. It's not like copies can replace the original, and sharing might actually increase your reputation and lead to commissions.
That's the most logical and neccesary laundry list of copyright fixes I could possibly imagine (I'd also throw in a reduction of copyright term lengths). You could implement all those changes and it wouldn't harm the the major media corporations in the slightest.
The only reason they fight against these things is because someone's getting paid to fight against these things - not because any of these issues would seriously impact their bottom line.
Broadcast television and radio has thrived for decades while offering their content free to the public. They're even able to compete against cable, despite having their content highly regulated and even censored by the government. In fact, their model is so successful that cable copied it and gave viewers commercials too, even though they are already paying for the content that should be commercial free. Cable companies could shut down tomorrow, and broadcasting will still thrive with their free offerings.
And if the internet is choking, it's only because of the monopoly cable companies hold on the internet are choking it. If they can offer all those channels via cable, they can offer them via internet too.
That's today's problem. It will change. It might take a decade or more, but it will change. Once they lose control of the content, they won't have the clout to maintain their monopoly power.
The content being created for cable is all by professionals who do it for a living and probably aren't going to do it for free on Youtube (assuming their audience wouldn't be large enough to generate a profit). I'm not going to cry over their lost jobs, though.
That's a great theory while the newspaper is still in business. Many newspapers have come and gone in the last century, and it's easy for all that to fall into copyright limbo.
And of course, your idea is completely voluntary and still gives copyright holders complete control over what aspects of history get archives and what doesn't. That's no how culture works.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When in doubt, blame copyright
It rarely makes economic sense to retain most of our cultural heritage. That's why we have libraries and museums to archive things - because they aren't tasked with turning a profit.
There's a huge difference. Cable companies aren't dumb pipes when it comes to content, because they're the ones paying for content. When cable companies actually become dumb internet pipes, the content creators will have to find another way to get their content paid for. Those internet fees don't pay for content.
If content creators can't make deals with Netflix or Hulu or find a way to offer their content online, they're dead. Good riddance because most of it is crap, but it's going to seriously upset the whole industry.
It will eventually destroy the power of cable companies, because whoever controls the content controls everything. Without that power, they won't be able to hold onto their monopoly power forever.
On the post: House Judiciary Committee Hears Concerns From Silicon Valley About Copyright Law
Re: Re: Re:
And there's no real reason to charge a registration fee. A searchable online registration system can be setup with very little overhead by the government. You could also charge a single fee for a group of works. There's ways to manage this without shouting "what about the starving artists!" It's not about extracting money for copyright - it's about having a way to know what is protected and what isn't.
On the post: House Judiciary Committee Hears Concerns From Silicon Valley About Copyright Law
Re:
If people like your paintings so much that they want to copy them, then you should be able to command a higher price for your paintings. It's not like copies can replace the original, and sharing might actually increase your reputation and lead to commissions.
On the post: House Judiciary Committee Hears Concerns From Silicon Valley About Copyright Law
The only reason they fight against these things is because someone's getting paid to fight against these things - not because any of these issues would seriously impact their bottom line.
On the post: Police Union Boss: Quentin Tarantino Needs To Patch Up Cop-Citizen Relationships, Not Us
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Police Union Boss: Quentin Tarantino Needs To Patch Up Cop-Citizen Relationships, Not Us
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Police Union Boss: Quentin Tarantino Needs To Patch Up Cop-Citizen Relationships, Not Us
Re:
On the post: Charity Pops Up Claiming That It Holds The Copyright On Happy Birthday
On the post: Police Union Boss: Quentin Tarantino Needs To Patch Up Cop-Citizen Relationships, Not Us
On the post: Police Union Boss: Quentin Tarantino Needs To Patch Up Cop-Citizen Relationships, Not Us
Re: All Bets are off
No, we are admitting it exists, and we want it to change. The police are the ones pretending it doesn't exist.
On the post: TVEyes Hit With Incredibly Restrictive Permanent Injunction By Court
On the post: One Slightly Less Shitty Quarter For Cable Fuels Renewed Cord Cutting Denial
Re: Re:
And if the internet is choking, it's only because of the monopoly cable companies hold on the internet are choking it. If they can offer all those channels via cable, they can offer them via internet too.
On the post: Copyright Terms And How Historical Journalism Is Disappearing
Re: FAIR USE exception for education, analysis and review
On the post: One Slightly Less Shitty Quarter For Cable Fuels Renewed Cord Cutting Denial
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: One Slightly Less Shitty Quarter For Cable Fuels Renewed Cord Cutting Denial
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: One Slightly Less Shitty Quarter For Cable Fuels Renewed Cord Cutting Denial
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Terms And How Historical Journalism Is Disappearing
Re: Re: Re: When in doubt, blame copyright
And of course, your idea is completely voluntary and still gives copyright holders complete control over what aspects of history get archives and what doesn't. That's no how culture works.
On the post: Copyright Terms And How Historical Journalism Is Disappearing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When in doubt, blame copyright
On the post: Cable CEO Is Really Pissed That HBO Hasn't Cracked Down On Streaming Password Sharing
Re:
On the post: One Slightly Less Shitty Quarter For Cable Fuels Renewed Cord Cutting Denial
Re:
If content creators can't make deals with Netflix or Hulu or find a way to offer their content online, they're dead. Good riddance because most of it is crap, but it's going to seriously upset the whole industry.
It will eventually destroy the power of cable companies, because whoever controls the content controls everything. Without that power, they won't be able to hold onto their monopoly power forever.
On the post: Cable CEO Is Really Pissed That HBO Hasn't Cracked Down On Streaming Password Sharing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah
Those 10 or 12 people living together won't be living together forever. They'll each be getting their own accounts after college.
Deny their piracy now, and they'll find other ways to entertain themselves and you've lost them forever.
If I were HBO, I'd be giving college dorms free accounts.
Next >>