• HeartyBeast
    8•1 year ago

    And protecting copyright is supporting big corporations.

    Apart from - you know, all the photographers, designers, authors and musicians out there.

    • Deceptichum
      6•1 year ago

      You mean the ones who routinely come out saying how X corporation stole their work and they received nothing for it?

      The ones where if you try to challenge the corporations hoarding human cultural works you’ll find yourself in a legal battle you can’t afford to enter.

      The amount of times an artist “wins” in the system vs a corporation is laughable. It’s designed to protect you and I, like the rest of the legal system does (it doesn’t).

      • HeartyBeast
        4•1 year ago

        You mean the ones who routinely come out saying how X corporation stole their work and they received nothing for it?

        Yes.The ones who routinely use copyright to get some form of payment. I know several people who had their photographs reublished by the Daily Mail and subsequently got payment. It happens. It’s an imperfect system, but still one that allows small artists to make a living.

        he amount of times an artist “wins” in the system vs a corporation is laughable.

        I mean, it really isn’t. It’s the entire backbone of an industry whereby, for example a photographer or illustrator can supply woirk to a magazine on a single use license. It’s how people who supply photo libraries make a living. It’s how small bands have at least some protection.

        • Deceptichum
          2•1 year ago

          The difference is, even if it worked properly I would still not be in favour of denying people freedom to use cultural works.