Asklemmy

1/ Any monopoly hinders free flow of information/knowledge/culture.

2/ current copyright regime is used massively to the profit of the intermediaries who exploit the authors (70y after death? srsly? how is that even a thing?!)

3/ current copyright regime is used to control and censor flows of information, like the automated censorshop ("robocop-yright") of Youtube and others. powerful actors can use copyright from their portfolio to censor anything critical, parodic, or just new works remixing or reusing "their" works

4/ the regime of exceptions to copyright, that is supposed to represent the balance of that pact struck between authors, their intermediaries, the public and the legislator has been skewed, and consistently reduced over they years and through the use of technology. think of the right to lend a book or a physical record in the era of DRM. you cannot lend a game or a DRMed file anymore. etc.

5/ current networks exploiting works "legally" are the ones who rip the artists the most: spotify gives fractions of fractions of cents to the artists for every listen, while giving away billions to the intermediaries, and pocketing huge profits...

6/ all the propaganda about "piracy kills authors" is bullshit. same stuff was heard about (including but not limited to): electric piano, music on the radio, cassette tape recorders, VHS tapes, p2p networks, etc.. peer reviewed studies all show on the contrary that people who share the most are actually active participants in culture who buy more cultural goods than the average, who act as prescriptors and recommend concerts, works, etc.. to others...

The whole point of copyright law today is thus:

• to allow intermediaries to exploit artists
• to give them control over what is gonna be listened/viewed in order to maximize their returns on investments and minimize their risk-taking (thus empoverishing culture altogether
• to guilt-trip passionate people, the public into NOT participating into culture (sharing is caring!) but instead becoming docile "consumers" of it
• to help powerful actors censor free speech to comfort their power.

The only thing that would seem acceptable and was actually the norm in early 20th century is: a copyright that is solely belonging to the author (not transferable) / for a period of 5 years (eventually renewable once upon explic demand, for a minor fee, by the author... in which line of work are you paid for what you did 10 years ago anyways?) / with a generous regime of exceptions including private use not-for-profit, libraries, lending, remixes, etc.