The key problem is that copyright infringement by a private individual is regarded by the court as something so serious that it negates the right to privacy. It’s a sign of the twisted values that copyright has succeeded on imposing on many legal systems. It equates the mere copying of a digital file with serious crimes that merit a prison sentence, an evident absurdity.

This is a good example of how copyright’s continuing obsession with ownership and control of digital material is warping the entire legal system in the EU. What was supposed to be simply a fair way of rewarding creators has resulted in a monstrous system of routine government surveillance carried out on hundreds of millions of innocent people just in case they copy a digital file.

    • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      So Disney and Nintendo can keep doing what they are doing but also the same companies can steal the work of smaller artists almost immediately?

      No thanks.

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        So Disney and Nintendo can keep doing what they are doing

        After 30 years not even Disney or Nintendo will pay a billion for exclusivity.

        but also the same companies can steal the work of smaller artists almost immediately?

        Let’s make copyright non-transferable. For a company to retain copyright it must employ the creator.

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        To retain copyright:-

        $2^n for year n

        $1 for year 1

        $2 for year 2

        $4 for year 3

        $1k for year 10

        $32k for year 15

        $1m for year 20

        $1bn for year 30

        • Soggy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Why, though? It still pointlessly favors people who already have money. Just get rid of it.

            • Soggy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              You are desperate to give rich fucks an avenue to maintain an advantage over everyone else.

              • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                No. I want to give small creators a tool to stop their work being stolen in the short term.

                But I also want to force copyright monopolists to pay ever increasing tax on the property they hold that should really be in the public domain.

                My proposal also means orphan works no longer exist.

    • laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Like, maybe tiered to something like 5 years: pay what it costs now, 10 years: 10 times that cost, and 15 years: 100 times, with a hard cap at 15? I could get behind that.

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah. Something like that. Maybe don’t even need a cap.

        If you pay $2^n each year n to retain copyright then by year 30 you are into the billions.

      • kryptonite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        5 years: pay what it costs now

        It doesn’t cost anything to copyright something. You just automatically own the copyright to something you create.

        (This may vary outside the US; I’m not familiar with international copyright law.)