I agree that I should be able to use whatever you make and sell it for money without crediting you because I’m a human just like you. We’re basically related so whatever you make is also mine because we’re pretty try much the same person.
SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 day ago
I am cool with everything stuffed into AI and freely distributed, whatever the form. Bluntly, I think copyright sucks, and want it gone. Nintendo shouldn’t be able to patent game mechanics, and I would like to see more mashups of things.
Montreal_Metro@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
bss03@infosec.pub 1 day ago
I will support the elimination of copyright. But, as long as copyright exists, I will reject and resist AI.
That said, there are a number of other reasons I think AI sucks, it’s not limited to copyright.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 day ago
i support elimination of IP copyright for medications, lessen the time for other forms of IP, like movie/show franchises.
bss03@infosec.pub 1 day ago
I don’t think copyright is currently serving it’s purpose “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”. And it should be eliminated anywhere it is not doing that.
Closest to my pocketbook is software (I’m a programmer), and I think we’d almost certainly be better off without copyright of any kind on software. It would mean exercise of some of our freedom around software would have to be implemented via reverse engineering, but it would make that route much more available / less risky for software that is current not Free Software. But, maybe I’m extra jaded because software is almost always done as “work-for-hire” so the author doesn’t actually hold the copyright, the Capitalist employer does.
Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
I support the elimination of copyright in it’s current form
The way it was initially was fine IMO: 14 years, with an option to renew it at the end of those 14 years. ONCE.
Now in terms of patenting medications, if it was partially paid for with public money it’s the public’s patent. In other words it’s open for everyone. Made a new medication but took a government grant to help fund it? It’s public when it comes out, enjoy a nice hearty reward check for your efforts.
TomAwsm@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Ah, a man of culture - DBZ Team Training is a classic. I also hear good things about Super Mariomon, though I haven’t tried it yet myself.
tal@lemmy.today 1 day ago
Those are patents, not copyrights. There are a bunch of different forms of intellectual property. Of the top of my head:
Copyright
Trademark
Patent
Moral (not very substantial in the US, but more-meaningful in France)
SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 day ago
IMO, the way it should be is that concepts and art should be free to be used by anyone. However, specific incarnations made someone can’t be copied. For example, Nintendo can make a Pokemon game, as can Sega with the same characters. Naturally, Nintendo can make a Shin Megami Mario game.
The important thing is that the company or people behind an incarnation is distinctly labelled, so that people can’t confuse who made what. In this way, variants of a media can fulfill niches that otherwise wouldn’t be possible. Say, for example, a WoodRocket “Jessie Does James” hentai anime.
3abas@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Once you start studying non capitalist propaganda, the idea of “intellectual property” becomes transparently harmful. Copyrights don’t protect ideas, they protect the wealth of rich people.
hayvan@feddit.nl 1 day ago
Indeed. I’m not against copyrights owned by individuals. Corporations owning rights is downright dystopian.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
It should fall under more general laws against fraud. The main harm in copyright violation is copying something and claiming to be the original author, thereby stealing credit for it. If a reasonable person would mistake your product as coming from the original source, then you have committed fraud and should be held liable for damages.
However, if you make a spinoff and it’s obviously distinct such that a reasonable person wouldn’t mistake your work as coming from the original creator, that should be protected.
So yeah, if I want to make a Pokemon game and it is very distinct from anything The Pokemon Company has worked on (either directly or indirectly), then it should be totally fine. The only copyright violation is if I directly copy any artwork, but if I produce my own renditions, I should be in the clear.
tal@lemmy.today 1 day ago
I have, in the past, kind of wished that settings and characters could not be copyrighted. I realize that there’s work that goes into creating each, but I think that we could still live in a world where those weren’t protected and interesting stuff still gets created. If that were to happen, then I agree, it’d be necessary to make it very clear who created what, since the setting and characters alone wouldn’t uniquely identify the source.
Like, there are things like Greek mythology or the Robin Hood collection of stories, very important works of art from our past, that were created by many different unaffiliated people. They just couldn’t be created today with our modern stories, because the settings and characters would be copyrighted and most rightsholders don’t just offer a blanket grant of rights to use them.
That’s actually one unusual and notable thing H.P. Lovecraft did — if you’ve ever seen stuff in the Cthulhu Mythos, that’s him. He encouraged anyone who wanted to do so to create stuff using his universe. One reason why we have that kind of collection of Lovecraftian stuff.
But you can’t do that with, say, Star Wars or a lot of other beloved settings.
SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 day ago
The Touhou franchise strikes me as the modern Lovecraft. People are creating fangames, and go on to make them into commercial products. Around the 22nd or thereabout, “Shrine Maiden Wars” will be released, which is a take on the Super Robot Wars formula, but with the Touhou cast. It is an incredibly vibrant ecosystem of fanworks, where most people get to have fun AND profit.
Image