• cmhe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    No, it is consistent. Because it is not about the law itself, but about it being applied in a double standard. If a random person copies a product made by an industry, the law will punish them. If the industry copies work of random people, its fine and a sign of progress.

    I would like a copyright to be nontransferable, bound to the individuals that created it, and limited for about 10 years or so (depending on what it is), to give the creators some way to earn a reward back, while also encouraging to create new stuff.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Fair point. It is consistent, in a shitty horrible way, but it is there.

      And yes I do agree. If someone would make a copyright system that promised the creator would get paid and was reasonable in duration I would support it. Yes, I do think creatives should have control over their work and be paid for it. The nuts and bolts of how that can be achieved I admit I am not sure of, but I am confident better legal minds than mine can work it out. However, given that no country is going to build such a system I don’t support copyright in any form.

      Corny capitalism is the worst fucking way of doing anything. It is better to have literally no system than that.