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

  • ryannathans@aussie.zoneEnglish
    0·
    4 months ago

    Generally speaking all the money is made in a very short time after release compared to the life of copyright

    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      0·
      4 months ago

      So? If you spent years making a movie, don’t you think you should keep the rights for the movie for awhile? I have many friends that have careers with their style of art.

      I’m not against piracy in general, you should absolutely go after the evil corporations. I’m saying that for the small time artist, they need protections.

      • Semjaza@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
        0·
        4 months ago

        I’m fairly sure that at this point pirating has been shown to lead to increased sales, even of small scale productions.

        Also, no one said that people can’t keep the rights for a while, just that if you don’t let people access those things you don’t get to prosecute them for making the art available.