/fur/ - Furry★

>>90133 (OP)

>Enjoy shitty fan films, idle games, not much else.

pretty much status quo then, excluding pirating old media, which would continue unabated.

the only bad thing about abolishing copyright is that it wouldn't do more damage to the ability to monetize art. kickstarter and patreon offer perfectly viable alternative funding solutions by front-loading the costs and the expected % profit, then starting work.

chris chan is a weird example though given how crazy he got when other people made works set in his universe.

>>90133 (OP)

Art belongs to the world is a simpleton’s understanding of copyright law.

Back in Shakespeare’s time people would sit in a play at the Globe, write down the lines as fast as their illiterate mind could manage, and then scurry off to a second rate theater where they could put on the same play for even dumber poorer audiences who didn’t know the difference.

With much of the unwashed masses identifying all the ripped off work as coming from William himself, his motive to produce art was diminished because his brand was so diluted. Enter laws to protect creative people from wasting their time and losing credit for their work.

Today copyright law exists mainly so Warner Group can get rich off of artists, not so that those artists can keep control of their image. Nobody is going to download a MP3 of me playing a Metallica song and mistake me for James Hetfield. Nobody will mistake my furry webcomic for Jack or Albedo.

People have an intuitive sense that something is wrong but they don’t bother to research it and come to the conclusion that the laws are to blame.

>>90133 (OP)

Why do you keep posting this? Is it just the one thing your brain can't help but keep coming back to?

>>90166

We must never forget Chris-chan I guess. I certainly don’t need to see another one.

>>90133 (OP)

>art belongs to the world

No, you moron. Art doesn't belong to anyone; in fact, it can't. Art, just like music, literature, and games, is by its very nature non-rivalrous (i.e. if someone else is viewing an image you're not prevented from from viewing it). And as soon as you distribute it, it also becomes non-excludable (i.e. good luck getting it off the internet/people's hard drives/etc.)

>tell artists they can't own or profit off the work they put in

no one said that, you drooling retard. you can make money the same way someone who sells physical goods would, let's say a carpenter: you fucking charge people to make a product (furniture), to repair it, etc. And as an informative side note, carpenters don't fucking charge people royalties if they try to make a copy of a piece of furniture they own, and carpenters don't attach strings to the shit they sell, because a sale is a fucking sale.

I bet next you're gonna say people are cheating restaurants out of money when they prepare the same food at home instead of buying it off restaurants.