Comment by TheOtherHobbes

Comment by TheOtherHobbes a day ago

4 replies

Copyright doesn't "produce a cultural hellscape." That's just nonsense. Capitalism does because it has editorial control over narratives and their marketing and distribution.

Those are completely different phenomena. Removing copyright will not suddenly open the floodgates of creativity because anyone can already create anything.

But - and this is the key point - most work is me-too derivative anyway. See for example the flood of magic school novels which were clearly loosely derivative of Harry Potter.

Same with me-too novels in romantasy. Dystopian fiction. Graphic novels. Painted art. Music.

It's all hugely derivative, with most people making work that is clearly and directly derivative of other work.

Copyright doesn't stop this, because as a minimum requirement for creative work, it forces it to be different enough.

You can't directly copy Harry Potter, but if you create your own magic school story with some similar-ish but different-enough characters and add dragons or something you're fine.

In fact under capitalism it is much harder to sell original work than to sell derivative work. Capitalism enforces exactly this kind of me-too creative staleness, because different-enough work based on an original success is less of a risk than completely original work.

Copyright is - ironically - one of the few positive factors that makes originality worthwhile. You still have to take the risk, but if the risk succeeds it provides some rewards and protections against direct literal plagiarism and copying that wouldn't exist without it.

thomastjeffery 18 hours ago

Everything is derivative. This boundary you are defending between originality and slop is extremely subjective at best. What harm is slop anyway? If originality is so objectively valuable, then why should its value be systemically enforced?

At the intersection of capitalism and copyright, I see a serious problem. Collaboration is encapsulated by competition. Because simple derivative work is illegal, all collaboration must be done in teams. Copyright defines every work of art as an island, whose value is not the art itself, but the moat that surrounds it. It should be no surprise that giant anticompetitive corporations reflect this structure. The core value of copyright is not creativity: it's rent-seeking.

Without copyright, we could collaborate freely. Our work would not be required to compete at all! Instead of victory over others' work, our goal could be success!

  • Aloisius 13 hours ago

    We know what the world looks like without copyright and that world has far fewer works created and very few artists who can do it full-time absent patronage or independent wealth.

    Banning the nonsense that is character copyright and shortening copyright back down to a reasonable length of time (say, 20 years) would still enable the creation of more culturally-relevant derivative works without pauperizing every artist.

    • thomastjeffery 13 hours ago

      How could we possibly know that? Copyright has existed since before the industrial revolution even started. What you described is not really that far from reality today: most artists are not really making a living. The words "starving artist" have not even begun to lose their meaning. Every artist I know has been failed by copyright. The value a copyright creates is not applied to the art: it's applied to the moat around the art. The only certain beneficiaries are the giant corporations that use their collected moats to drown out small competition, including artists.

      • Aloisius 11 hours ago

        The copyright laws that existed prior to the industrial revolution only existed only in a small number of countries. A large swath of the planet had no equivalent.

        Even British Colonial America had no copyright, save a handful of exceptions, as the Statute of Anne did not apply to the colonies.