That is far from "all it does", YouTube is a prime example of the suppression forces inherent in copy right law, and the amount of abuse that occurs chilling speech and public participation
>>You really should consider the other part of the equation. Authors need to eat.
No I really should not. That is not the goal nor desire of copyright law. profit is not the reason copyright was added as a constitutional power of the US Government nor should that be the metric for which we judge the effectiveness of copyright law
>. They can only eat if publishers pay them.
Again this is incorrect, and becomes more incorrect as time goes on. Through Copyright publishers act as gate keepers which prohibits new an innovative ways of funding creative works beyond the traditional copyright model
Copyright from its inception has had a questionable [1][2] history even when looked at from the creators point of view
> No "monopoly" means no paid authors
There is nothing further form the truth than a statement that absence copyright all creative work would cease. OpenSource software, Open Documentation Projects, and the huge amount of Free Culture works fly in the face of that statement.
Further it is provable and self evidently false that publishers and traditional publishing models are the only or even best method to fund creative works in the 21st century
Youtube is in fact a great example of the flexibility of the copyright program. You have millions of hours of professionally-produced work, and millions more hours of people commenting, analyzing, critiquing, or otherwise engaged in the marketplace of ideas with respect to those works...all within the framework of the copyright system. That doesn't include the billions of hours of non-professional content uploaded to the site.
That is not the goal nor desire of copyright law. profit is not the reason copyright was added as a constitutional power
In fact, providing creators with profits is exactly the reason copyright law was enshrined in the Constitution: to incentivize creators to do their creating in the US. (The copyright and patent system merely formalized and codified an exclusive monopoly system for inventions originally developed in Europe during the Middle Ages.)
>>Youtube is in fact a great example of the flexibility of the copyright program.
I can not believe anyone can say with a strait face that YouTube is an example of copyright working
The number of people that get hit with false DMCA, people claiming copyright on NASA videos for example, or video clearly in the public domain, or not accounting for Fair use at all (which given your authoritarian copyright maximalist other comments I bet you support removing fair use completely from copyright ) points to a Broken System
DMCA is abhorrent law, as 95 year copyrights, no sane person would support them
That is far from "all it does", YouTube is a prime example of the suppression forces inherent in copy right law, and the amount of abuse that occurs chilling speech and public participation
>>You really should consider the other part of the equation. Authors need to eat.
No I really should not. That is not the goal nor desire of copyright law. profit is not the reason copyright was added as a constitutional power of the US Government nor should that be the metric for which we judge the effectiveness of copyright law
>. They can only eat if publishers pay them.
Again this is incorrect, and becomes more incorrect as time goes on. Through Copyright publishers act as gate keepers which prohibits new an innovative ways of funding creative works beyond the traditional copyright model
Copyright from its inception has had a questionable [1][2] history even when looked at from the creators point of view
> No "monopoly" means no paid authors
There is nothing further form the truth than a statement that absence copyright all creative work would cease. OpenSource software, Open Documentation Projects, and the huge amount of Free Culture works fly in the face of that statement.
Further it is provable and self evidently false that publishers and traditional publishing models are the only or even best method to fund creative works in the 21st century
[1] https://questioncopyright.org/promise
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI