• pjhenry1216@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s a shame that it’s even considered “radical” since it’s basically a copyright holder upholding their end of the bargain in the promise behind the origin of copyright. To incentivize creative content, a creator is given sole ability to monetize it for a fixed period of time. In return for that protection, the public gets it at the end of the term. Today’s copyright is so far off course that it defeats the intent. There’s no incentive to create anything new if you can keep milking existing content. And the public never gets a return for offering that protection.

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Companies expect to sell something a million times and still own it.

      Nah, guys. Culture belongs to its audience. It’s ours. We bought it. That’s what the money was for.