I have never argued that fair use should not exist as a concept and I do specifically think the question of IP is far murkier when it comes to derivative works Even among "copyright maximalists" the idea of banning all fan work is mostly a strawman
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Raptornx01 and
We're not really talking about that though, we're talking about the erosion of any business model based on copyright until the point it becomes unviable, and as a result the total amount of cash in the "art economy" steadily shrinks
2 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @ComradeGorbash and
there will always be money in the art economy. consumers don't stop spending when something goes away, they just spend on something else. the only difference is it wouldn't be concentrated in the hands of a few huge entities. community vendors, commissions, merch, it still exists
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Raptornx01 @ComradeGorbash and
Yeah the trends in the industry are going the exact opposite way The digital era hasn't seen the Gini coefficient among artists decrease, it's in fact skyrocketed The Internet era has made Disney more dominant than it's ever been
1 reply 1 retweet 14 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @ComradeGorbash and
i thinks thats more disney's doing. gobbling up company after company, IP after IP. the internet has allowed for more variety. online only books, youtube tv shows, etc. and honestly, disney is getting there because they are holding onto the old ways of theaters and tv.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Raptornx01 @arthur_affect and
so as traditional media outlets shrink power is getting consolidated. it's WHY companies keep trying to get control of the internet.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Raptornx01 @ComradeGorbash and
The point is the actual money is becoming hyperconcentrated in Disney and other corporations because those old obsolete distribution models *are where the money is* The Internet increased rather than decreased overall inequality because *people online don't make any money*
3 replies 3 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @ComradeGorbash and
they make money, they just have to work at it in a different way then before. they have to be their own marketing firm, and have to keep going with their work.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Raptornx01 @arthur_affect and
It’s okay for society to step in & declare some things off limits though. Like if an artist puts a price tag on their work, you should respect it.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @doctorflopsy @arthur_affect and
which they did. by allowing authors to opt out if they wanted.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
They didn't contact the authors beforehand and ask for their permission, so no they didn't That's not how the legal concept of consent works
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @doctorflopsy and
except under copyright law libraries don't need to. if they do it it's a courtesy. esp with donated books.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Raptornx01 @arthur_affect and
Brick & morter libraries do have to pay for their copies. People can donate, but libraries are still “paying” because those people get a write-off. Some public libraries are under obligation to pay for certain kinds of books (local authors for ex).
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.