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

  • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    7·
    5 months ago

    Too fucking bad? The purpose of IP was to give the public access to novel ideas and art, not to increase the control creators had over it.

    • otp@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      6·
      5 months ago

      Seems weird for it to be called “intellectual property” if its purpose is not to be owned

      • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        5·
        5 months ago

        To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

        Not ‘to grant them greater control’ or even ownership. To secure exclusive right for a limited time. And this only because it was meant to promote science and art.

        Using copyright to prevent a work from spreading is a direct perversion of the intent, it is using it in a manner diametrically opposed to what it is supposed to do.

        • otp@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2·
          5 months ago

          By having a Right to do something, a person also has the implicit Right to abstain from doing something.

          Having the Right to Free Speech doesn’t mean that a person is obligated to make publicly available every thought and opinion that they have.

          • Venia Silente@lemm.eeEnglish
            1·
            5 months ago

            Then they have the right to not continue publishing their stuff. That doesn’t affect the rights of the persons who already got their copy alongside the associated rights to consume it. Depending on the licensing terms, it might not even affect their granted right to redistribute, if any.

            • otp@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              2·
              5 months ago

              Then they have the right to not continue publishing their stuff.

              I was arguing against the comment that said:

              You should be legally required to offer content you have on a copyright or else allow people to “pirate” it.