One of the clearest demonstrations of how copyright is actively harmful is the lawsuit that four of the biggest publishers brought against the Internet Archive. As a result of the judge’s decision in favour of the publishers – currently being appealed – more than 500,000 books have been taken out of lending by the Internet Archive, including more than 1,300 banned and “challenged” books. In an open letter to the publishers in the lawsuit, the Internet Archive lists three core reasons why removing half a million ebooks is “having a devastating impact in the US and around the world, with far-reaching implications”.
Cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/17259314
What if you create something that you later really hate and don’t want it to exist anymore?
We can think of weird edge cases all day, the fact is companies shouldn’t be able to hoard IP.
What if Tommy Wiseau became self-aware before the premiere of The Room? The world would be deprived of his glorious travesty of cinema forever.
Too fucking bad? The purpose of IP was to give the public access to novel ideas and art, not to increase the control creators had over it.
Seems weird for it to be called “intellectual property” if its purpose is not to be owned
Not ‘to grant them greater control’ or even ownership. To secure exclusive right for a limited time. And this only because it was meant to promote science and art.
Using copyright to prevent a work from spreading is a direct perversion of the intent, it is using it in a manner diametrically opposed to what it is supposed to do.
By having a Right to do something, a person also has the implicit Right to abstain from doing something.
Having the Right to Free Speech doesn’t mean that a person is obligated to make publicly available every thought and opinion that they have.
Then they have the right to not continue publishing their stuff. That doesn’t affect the rights of the persons who already got their copy alongside the associated rights to consume it. Depending on the licensing terms, it might not even affect their granted right to redistribute, if any.
I was arguing against the comment that said: