IA didn’t get sued for archiving. They got sued for mass redistribution.
Comment on Yet more examples of how copyright destroys culture rather than driving it
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 2 months agoAlright but Archiving is already an exception to most laws (clearly not well enforced seeing what happened to the IA) and your proposal would harm young artists who need to share their works in order to gain publicity for something they intend to sell and sustain themselves on.
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
psychothumbs@lemmy.world 2 months ago
“your proposal would harm young artists who need to share their works in order to gain publicity for something they intend to sell and sustain themselves on.”
The default is already for young artists to share a lot of their work hoping to get noticed. Getting rid of copyright would be reorienting the whole system to center that experience more rather than the established artists and art producing corporations who now are in a strong enough position to charge. “Making it” would just mean that your patreon was doing gangbusters rather than selling a lot of copies of whatever your art is.
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 2 months ago
No, it would empower anybody, especially corporations, to take the new artists’ ideas and work and repackage them as an item for sale to others. Anything you share would not be covered by copyright and therefor no longer be your property.
psychothumbs@lemmy.world 2 months ago
If you are already sharing something for free in order to gain publicity, what is the downside of others repackaging them and spreading them further? That is exactly the kind of publicity you’re trying to gain.
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 2 months ago
But you’re not profiting off of it. The corporation is. They have no incentive to give you credit, every incentive to claim that they made it which they would of course be allowed to do. They could even start making their own derivative pieces or continuations. The artist has gained nothing from this hypothetical.