this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
125 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
88199 readers
3615 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Copyright isn't supposed to promote anything, copyright is supposed to grant infinite money out of a once made job(by a specialist who was paid also only once) to a capitalist.
I mean, you are describing modern copyright.
But copyright is an example of something where the US Constitution, at least, explicitly says its purpose is to "promote" something:
I like how straightforward the Copyright Clause is. It even gives a testable standard. The length of "exclusive Right" for IP should be the "limited" length of time that "promote[s] the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
So, the plain reading here is that IP laws need to give exclusivity long enough to encourage creation, by making authors and inventors think it is worth the time and money investment, but not so long that they discourage creation, for example, where a person doesn't create something because they are afraid of violating IP laws.
Originally, in the US, copyright lasted 14 years, with an option for renewing for 14 more years, and this is one example where I think they got it about right.
The problem is that it specifies both a purpose
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Artsand a mechanism by which to do so
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.The purpose is great, the mechanism is dogshit in the 21st century, as it just lazily crams information into capitalism rather than adapting capitalism to the realities of information.
The problem is that capitalism is a system entirely based around things that are scarce, and it only functions in that context. Air for instance is completely free and valueless, even though it's wildly critical, just because it is abundant. In capitalism things don't have value when they are useful or needed, just when they are scarce.
That works fine-ish when you mostly deal in physical goods, because the way that energy and mass scale means that they are somewhat inherently scarce, it takes just as much mass/energy to make a second copy as the first. Information blows this apart though, starting with the written word, escalating with the printing press, and being oblitered in the digital connected age, as information does not scale like energy / mass and as a result it has become trivial to infinitely copy and distribute information, making it abundant the moment it's digitized.
So now you have the Constitution enshrining mechanisms that enforce scarcity where there is absolutely no need for scarcity.
So how should it be changed then? Because giving no protection to inventors is not the answer.
Limited copyright encourages sharing. This is why patents are good. The problem occurs when the lifespan of the protection is too favourable to a non creator owner.
Protections held as an asset by a corporation do little to encourage innovation.
Without copyright, little creators would get no chance to make money. It would all go to capitalists.