• pjwestin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    15 hours ago

    No, Copyright exists to protect creators. It’s just been perverted and abused by the wealthy so that they can indefinitely retain IP. Disney holding on to an IP for 70 years after an author dies is messed up, but Disney taking your art and selling it to a mass audience without giving you a dime is worse.

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Copyright cannot protect 99% of creators because enforcing it takes enormous amounts of time and money. This isn’t really a big deal though because 99% of people who create don’t need these supposed protections.

      That’s right, the amount of writing, art, and music that is created for non-commercial purposes dwarfs what is created for profit.

      Your last tidbit is highly accurate. Big business almost exclusively uses copyright to control others work to the detriment of society.

      • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Anyone who creates anything? If not for copyright Steam would be a sea of games named Undertale Stardew Valley Elsa Spider-Man

        • Doomsider@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          You would deprive everyone of the joy of playing this game mashup!?

          I know you are joking, but honestly we would have a lot better games if we were allowed to openly borrow and build off of other concepts including characters and storylines.

          Simply put commercial interests don’t produce the best games. Instead of innovative gameplay we get loot boxes and micro transactions.

          A great example of this is Pokemon. You know damn well that fans could make a better Pokemon game than Nintendo ever could.

      • nomous@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Holy fuck I see some stupid takes posted here but this might be the stupidest.

      • pjwestin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Literally everyone who’s ever written a book, recorded a song, painted a painting, or created any other artwork.

        • blazera@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Books and song rights go to the publisher. Graphic artists generally dont own their art they make money from, I.E. illustrations or concept art for various things like shows, movies, games.

          • pjwestin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 hours ago

            First of all, no, publishers don’t necessarily own the copyright. Most authors do a licensing deal with a publisher, but they retain the copyright to their work. My understanding is that music industry contracts vary a lot more, since music is usually more collaborative, but lots of artists still own the rights to their songs. But even if that were true, artists being forced to sell their rights to cooperations isn’t an issue with copyright, it’s an issue with capitalism. It’s like blaming America’s shitty healthcare on doctors instead of a for-profit system controlled by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.