this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2025
33 points (100.0% liked)
askchapo
23231 readers
90 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The current system is nonsense, and allows the rich to control too much media (and thus culture). There are some movies or books that are hard to find "legitimate" copies of, because the "rights holders" don't want them out there, or a complicated confluence of "well the movie has music in it" or whatever.
The main thing I would like to see protected is for some nobody who makes a cool creative work to get credit. I don't want someone to make a cool cartoon, and then Disney just swoops in and makes their own movies and tv shows based on it while the creator is left in the dust. But I also don't want people to be able to hold onto an idea for decades, either.
I feel like anyone should be allowed to go make a Lord of the rings movie without needing permission. That shit is old now. It's just part of our culture.
Some sort of "you have exclusive rights for 3 years" plus "you must attribute previous works to their creators" might work for me.
I'm not a scholar I'm just shooting from the hip, but it was really annoying not being able to find a"legitimate" copy of spinal tap to stream recently.
Ironically, copyright sucks at defending the small guys. If a small nobody has their work copied by Disney, they definitely won't win a copyright infringement lawsuit due to how expensive and long it will be; in fact, it might even be bad PR for them because they could be perceived as "that one litigious person" or even a copyright troll.
Whereas under a copyright-free system or a much more lax copyright system, people would be more attentive and wouldn't assume that "if they didn't sue, it probably means Disney is in the right."
And as you noticed, current copyright is absurd: it applies to things that are no longer even being sold, and it's overly complex, so almost no one knows what counts as "copyright infringement" or not.
Funnily enough, current copyright has nothing to do with attribution. The judges and the legal system don't give a crap about it: in fact, you're making their job easier because you're admitting to copying and even providing the source.