How are you proposing that people protect their own ideas?
Say you write a book. You self-publish. A big publisher CTRL-C/CTRL-Vs your book and publishes it themselves with their access to distribution networks and advertising budgets. Now you sell 0 copies of your book while the publishing house makes millions.
What should you have done differently?
Copyright laws were invented to protect creative people against publishing monopolies.
I can’t believe people disagree with this point I am unable to explain. My utter lack of self awareness and critical thinking skills inform me that they’re all idiots, not I!
To answer yours, beyond what i already laid out in the question itself, the original Night Of The Living Dead has been out of copyright for decades, and yet corporations still make money off it.
Do they create their own derivative work and then make money off of that because copyright laws prevent people from copying and redistributing it for free?
Edit: They didn’t have an answer because they know I’m right. They respond with insults rather than admitting they’re wrong.
This is why businesses that profit off of copyright and patent laws make so much profit, because they have no shortage of suckers and saps who don’t know any better proud to throw money at them.
But hey, at least they fit in with each other, right? 😉
People can and will do that Big publishing houses cannot, because of the litigational threat.
While I don’t uncritically support one side or the other, there are provisions for protecting the small and large alike, and I think there’s no easy answer.
Everyone thinks the problem is easy to solve until a specific incidence lands in their lap.
yes. I’m saying there’s pros and cons to both sides so the solution is not to simply abandon the rule of law, nor is it to pretend that the law fixes everything and operates well.
No, they need to die.
If you can’t protect your own ideas, you shouldn’t get to rely on the government to do it for you.
on todays bozo braindead takes.
How are you proposing that people protect their own ideas?
Say you write a book. You self-publish. A big publisher CTRL-C/CTRL-Vs your book and publishes it themselves with their access to distribution networks and advertising budgets. Now you sell 0 copies of your book while the publishing house makes millions.
What should you have done differently?
Copyright laws were invented to protect creative people against publishing monopolies.
How is the publisher making money if everyone can copy and redistribute it for free themselves?
Edit: Loving the downvotes from useful idiots. Keep getting taken for a ride 👍
Yuuup.
You didn’t answer my questions
To answer yours, beyond what i already laid out in the question itself, the original Night Of The Living Dead has been out of copyright for decades, and yet corporations still make money off it.
How do they make money off of it?
Do they create their own derivative work and then make money off of that because copyright laws prevent people from copying and redistributing it for free?
Edit: They didn’t have an answer because they know I’m right. They respond with insults rather than admitting they’re wrong.
This is why businesses that profit off of copyright and patent laws make so much profit, because they have no shortage of suckers and saps who don’t know any better proud to throw money at them.
But hey, at least they fit in with each other, right? 😉
I see that you’re an “output only” poster, rather than a “will actually disuss things” poster. Noted.
That’s a new record. Less than a day and you already have a tag on your account.
People can literally do that right now and yet the music, book, etc. industries still exist
People can and will do that Big publishing houses cannot, because of the litigational threat.
While I don’t uncritically support one side or the other, there are provisions for protecting the small and large alike, and I think there’s no easy answer.
Everyone thinks the problem is easy to solve until a specific incidence lands in their lap.
The litigation threat only exists because of IP law
yes. I’m saying there’s pros and cons to both sides so the solution is not to simply abandon the rule of law, nor is it to pretend that the law fixes everything and operates well.
Brain dead take