Well, it’s not wrong to say that about the basic concept of copyright. The original purpose of copyright was to allow authors to feel free to publish stuff more widely without fear of it being “stolen.” Without copyright there’d be a lot more proprietary information being squirrelled away in private archives.

But of course, that concept has been completely hijacked over the years. The duration no longer makes sense for that original purpose.

Btw I have taken this picture straight from a bookstore

I don’t believe in physical property and i don’t believe in intellectual property. Fucking propertarians…🏴🏴🏴

Copyright fuels a weird form of creativity, the “Original Character do not steal” that is a blatant copy of another character. It also happens in music all the time, “Original lyrics, sound and composition, do not copy”

As for promoting free speech, yeah, no, it doesn’t. Everyone can point to a dozen videos being taken down by bogus copyright reasons, whether because it played 10 seconds of a specific music, or because the author of a piece of art disliked the video. That’s not even mentioning how you can’t (couldn’t?) use the “happy birthday” song in USA without being copyright struck.

I agree with this, but lets make it more explicit.

Supporting creative arts and works encourages more to be made. Copyright is one method we have tried to help creatives self-support from their work.

The corporatization of copyright, making it transferable, and forever… doesn’t seem to be as helpful as the original version. The public domain needs regular feeding as well.

Ah yes, a statement on copyright thanking someone for buying an authorised edition of Great Expectations, a book whose copyright expired in 1940 at the latest…