• mgiuca@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    You have the right to withhold sharing your creations. If you never release anything at all then the above would not apply. This is about if you release something then years later stop making it available and prevent anybody from ever making a copy again.

    (And the reason for that distinction is sound: the unreleased work is like nothing ever existed, the released work is part of the public culture.)

    • molave@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That hinges on the idea that nontangible assets are not scarce (which IMO applies or might just as well apply if it’s in the internet). You are not entitled to a boxed copy of ET (1982), but the same arguments can’t be applied to electronic copies of it.

      • mgiuca@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m talking about having the right to never release a work to the public in the first place (replying to another comment on that). This has nothing to do with scarcity.

        The simple argument is: you can choose to create something and never give it to anyone. Nobody is entitled to take it (that is a basic privacy principle). But if you do release something to the public, either for free or for sale, then there should be rules protecting the public’s access to that work.

        This doesn’t mean it has to be the end of copyright. Yes there’s no scarcity, but there still needs to be a function incentive to create the work in the first place, so a little artificial scarcity creates that incentive. But once the work has had a reasonable lifetime under copyright, or is no longer legally available, then yes we absolutely should be able to access it as part of the public domain.