You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Let's talk about: Copyright
Hi @davidallenjones, thank you. Copyright is a heated discussion, and a gray area for a lot of people who do not know or understand what copyright is. If you have any suggestions on adding links where only work is published that can be used for commercial purposes we are happy to add those links to our blogpost.
@xposed thanks for this post and to bring up the topic. This entire area is one that is hotly debated as you say and will continue to be for quite some time. In terms of sites, I am sure you are aware of places like Pixbay and Pexels where you can get photos with CC0 licenses. There are several other good ones like PxHere too. The reasons that photos and video sites like these are available is because the advent on low cost high quality cameras and so many sites selling them to traditional places that it wrecked the photography industry. When you add in that people are also using GiFs and memes from content with no credit paid, you can see that things are in a bad way for those who take pictures.
So most photogs have thrown in the towel and are looking to see if the new model of volume or giving away pictures as marketing for their services, or setting up on sites like Patreon actually pans out. I can tell you it has for only a very few photographers and most of the great ones I know struggle.
Longer form content is a more complicated issue. As you probably know newspaper and other periodical companies are under real pressure to make money but they are scrutinized. Today, they are under onslaught by regulators demanding high quality content and accountability. They need to be both profitable and responsible. So if they create content and set up licenses and that content ends up on sites that are focusing on terrorism, racism or other bad things, it can come back to haunt them. Also they do not have a revenue model for all of this. The tech has been way ahead of the laws and no one has wanted to slow things down for fear of stopping the tech money trains, so it is a mess right now.
On top of this, you have cheap online sites providing low quality content much of which is merely the traditional publishers content either rewritten or simply copied.
So finding good content that is not copyrighted and valued is really difficult. there are a few sites like http://www.copyrightfreecontent.com/ and there is this site that has links to public domain online resources http://publicdomainreview.org/guide-to-finding-interesting-public-domain-works-online/ but there is not a whole lot. Smart publishers are simply wating for laws to be rewritten to cover them for what is happening now. Many believe that the big guys like Facebook and Google will have to pay billions retroactively to content owners (Steemit would also be on the hook). Where and how this will end is anyone's guess but the direction is toward more regulation and more policing not less.
So you are left with two choices. 1. Take other people's content and hope that it does not come down on individuals. ( I personally think that there is a good possibility that this is the case).
Just my thoughts. and one more on a personal side. I am a firm believer in protecting creator rights. It takes time, sweat and resources to create content. Guys like Mark Zuckerburg have exploited the content of others (yes posts on Facebook is content too) to become one of the richest people in the world While many of the musicians, writer and other creative people cannot make any money. Same with Google's Youtube in many cases. Creators make these platforms run. So they should be paid.
I am in a fight right now with Spotify for the same reasons. They are about to go public at a $26B USD valuation meanwhile their writers and small publishers make very little. This is not sour grapes nor is it not recognizing changes in business models. I get and understand that times have changed, but if people still love the product (they do), then why are the people that create it getting paid any more and those who market or co-opt it making so much money. Without our creative people life becomes less interesting so we need to protect them. With this said, some common sense changes have to be made and I am hopeful with things like blockchain we can both create new models and break the content monopolies that are very outdated. Let's all stay focused on these issues. A place like Steemit has to because its future depends on it. Hopefully I answered your questions and thanks.
Steem Isn't Copyrighted, the whole idea of blockchains is to be open source, open source is fundamentally against IP. Creativity has happened despite Copyrights, in fact, the very first law regarding copyright was to censor and not to protect.
People didn't suddenly become more creative simply because a publisher could pimp them out. People have created art and music and been compensated in less freedom encroaching ways and logic assaulting basis than through copyrights.
Copyright advocates forever hold onto the myth that it spawns creativity, but this has never been demonstrated, what has been demonstrated is that both technological advancement and the age of enlightenment were stalled for a long time, the effect of which the petty compensation by this method could never offset, and it accrues still, people having to be dragged in court over downloading music because copying is stealing, what an abuse of logic.
Being compensated for something that is INFINITE and can be exchanged with the most effortless grace to countless people, with something finite, which comes through the sweat and brow of people usually. Compensation so as to keep art or idea in artificial scarcity, so as to monopolize on being the first to think or create it and to be enforced by and large for the detriment of consumers and for the appetite of the producers even though there are plenty of other means to be compensated besides hoarding over ideas.
Even though it says it promotes creativity, it can be demonstrated that it only stops people from pursuing something further and forces them to either pay or think of something better, like the fidged spinner which was stalled by 25 years sitting behind patent protections only to be capitulated once the ideas were free from the clutches of these poor sods that believe someone is going to protect them, all the while they exploit them, and hoping that the act of hoarding ideas will provide them with a big fish on the hook.
Copyright it's the antithesis of freedom in the aspect of freedom of thought and in the finality of freedom of expression for it's quite inconsequential who thoguht of it first and completely selfish, and nobody stops anyone from capitalizing on the first movers advantage, but alas the Fear Of Missing Out is one among the many fear-based emotions that rule people, instead of using their mind to think on how to capitulate on any idea, that is if they're not too enthraled with becoming a gazillionaire off their fidged spinner, only to not be able to afford to keep the patent after t hadn't been used for 25 years and watch them nake money while they get nothing.
IP as @Ned and @Dan have demonstrated in their posts, in their support is not something that can be made better, the concept is flawed inherently.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@ned/my-announcement-march-15-2017
https://steemit.com/musing/@modprobe/a-brief-musing-on-intellectual-property
and most importantly
https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/making-steem-really-open-source
and
https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/against-intellectual-monopoly-chapter-1
Creators do make these platform run, but not Copyright. It's actually something other than copyright that DOES pay them much more than copyright can.
Understanding the way how Copyright works at this very moment by law is one thing. Denying it, is another. Learn, adapt and move on.
You're accusing me of what exactly? Not understanding or Denying it, or both?
How do you learn, adapt and move on from the banality of copying is simply stealing?
#abuseoflogic