Yet more examples of how copyright destroys culture rather than driving it [Updated]
walledculture.org

One of the supposed justifications for the intellectual monopoly called copyright is that it drives creativity and culture. In the last few weeks alone we have had multiple demonstrations of why the opposite is true: copyright destroys culture, and not by accident, but wilfully. For example, the MTVNews.com site, along with its sister site CMT.com, …

One of the clearest demonstrations of how copyright is actively harmful is the lawsuit that four of the biggest publishers brought against the Internet Archive. As a result of the judge’s decision in favour of the publishers – currently being appealed – more than 500,000 books have been taken out of lending by the Internet Archive, including more than 1,300 banned and “challenged” books. In an open letter to the publishers in the lawsuit, the Internet Archive lists three core reasons why removing half a million ebooks is “having a devastating impact in the US and around the world, with far-reaching implications”.

Cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/17259314

  • eatham 🇭🇲@aussie.zoneEnglish
    133·
    4 months ago

    You completly misunderstood what you are replying to. They are not saying you have to release anything, just that if you don’t, others should be able to.

    • moody@lemmings.worldEnglish
      76·
      4 months ago

      If you don’t actually offer content you have the copyright for them you shouldn’t be allowed to prevent people from distributing it as abandonware.

      That’s what I’m replying to. You have the copyright for everything you create. If you don’t put it up for sale, they’re saying everyone should be allowed to distribute it. That’s kind of fucked.

      • Jolteon@lemmy.zipEnglish
        114·
        4 months ago

        I fail to see what’s wrong with that. If you aren’t intending to sell it, then it’s just hoarding. The only exception I can think of is something you’ve made but haven’t put on the market yet, and an “incomplete and under active development” clause could easily take care of that.

        • pelespirit@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          22·
          4 months ago

          So you spent 10 years on a personal song about your family dying around you, it’s very personal, heartfelt and could be extremely successful because it’s said in a way that people won’t at first understand. You play it for your friends and they absolutely love it and encourage you to put it out. You don’t want to because it hurts too much. So you think everyone else has the "right"s to that song because it’s hoarding if you don’t release it? Come on, you don’t own my thoughts and creations, it’s selfish, greedy and a little narcissistic.