Please note that many other asshole things would still be very bad and asshole-ish, even if there were no copyright laws. For example, if I printed Pokémon Trading Cards and claimed that the Pokémon Company printed them, it would definitely be fraud and deception.
We can also punish a lack of citations or attribution through culture without turning it into a criminal penalty.
It might sound weird, but copyright might not benefit a lot of big companies as much as you think in all circumstances. If a Twitch streamer plays a copyrighted song on Twitch and it gets muted in the VOD, does it really directly benefit the label? Not really, they’re losing an opportunity for free advertising. Don’t forget that music and information are not scarce; if I listen to a piece of music on my hard drive, it doesn’t prevent you from listening to the same music on your computer.
The “legitimate intent” of copyright, increasing the odds that original artists get paid, can be achieved without copyright laws, whether in a capitalist or socialist economy.
For example, in a capitalist context, artists could rely more heavily on direct patronage, live performances, commissions, or crowdfunding models that already thrive today despite and sometimes because of the limitations of traditional copyright enforcement. Platforms like Patreon, Bandcamp, or Substack show that audiences are often willing to support creators voluntarily when they feel a personal connection or see clear value.
In a socialist framework, creative work could be socially funded through public institutions, cooperatives, or community supported grants, ensuring artists are compensated not by artificial scarcity or legal monopolies, but by collective recognition of their contribution to culture.
Moreover, the idea that copying inherently harms creators assumes that exposure and sharing don’t generate value which, in the digital age, is increasingly untrue. Viral sharing can launch careers, build fanbases, and create demand for authentic experiences that can’t be copied: concerts, signed prints, behind the scenes access, or personalized interactions.
So copyright was never a fair deal. It restricted creativity, harmed sharing, and only pretended to help the public. Now, when information spreads easily and attention is what matters, it’s just an outdated tool for control.
If a Twitch streamer plays a copyrighted song on Twitch and it gets muted in the VOD, does it really directly benefit the label?
Content IDs feel like the prelude to do rent-extraction on users who will be made to pay a subscription for the right to stream such music. The industry is conglomerating around a few big companies and they could definitely do this to a point where there are no other alternatives besides not playing copyrighted music.
Copyright is very outdated, but also very useful to capitalists even paradoxically so.
Copyright is a double-edged sword. It only “works” for them if:
Everyone is relentlessly enforcing copyright without leaving any non-copyrighted alternatives
The streamer would buy the rights to stream the music if copyright was enforced on them
Most of them aren’t true and are very hard to prove.
If the dystopia you’re talking about does happen for whatever reason, a lot of streamers might switch to playing no music, rely on environmental sounds like bird songs, use non-copyrighted music, or generate their own music via AI.
The only real winners with the status quo are the law firms and lawyers imo.
I have no doubt that some companies benefit from the current system in some circumstances, but it’s a double-edged sword for sure.
Please note that many other asshole things would still be very bad and asshole-ish, even if there were no copyright laws. For example, if I printed Pokémon Trading Cards and claimed that the Pokémon Company printed them, it would definitely be fraud and deception.
This is an interesting case, because the Pokémon Company purposely entangles the Copyright and Trademark of it’s product. For a market to work even in a no-copyright world, you do still need some trademark protections; for example, if you sell 3rd party Pokémon cards, it would have to be explicit that they are not Pokémon Company cards.
Please note that many other asshole things would still be very bad and asshole-ish, even if there were no copyright laws. For example, if I printed Pokémon Trading Cards and claimed that the Pokémon Company printed them, it would definitely be fraud and deception.
We can also punish a lack of citations or attribution through culture without turning it into a criminal penalty.
It might sound weird, but copyright might not benefit a lot of big companies as much as you think in all circumstances. If a Twitch streamer plays a copyrighted song on Twitch and it gets muted in the VOD, does it really directly benefit the label? Not really, they’re losing an opportunity for free advertising. Don’t forget that music and information are not scarce; if I listen to a piece of music on my hard drive, it doesn’t prevent you from listening to the same music on your computer.
The “legitimate intent” of copyright, increasing the odds that original artists get paid, can be achieved without copyright laws, whether in a capitalist or socialist economy.
For example, in a capitalist context, artists could rely more heavily on direct patronage, live performances, commissions, or crowdfunding models that already thrive today despite and sometimes because of the limitations of traditional copyright enforcement. Platforms like Patreon, Bandcamp, or Substack show that audiences are often willing to support creators voluntarily when they feel a personal connection or see clear value.
In a socialist framework, creative work could be socially funded through public institutions, cooperatives, or community supported grants, ensuring artists are compensated not by artificial scarcity or legal monopolies, but by collective recognition of their contribution to culture.
Moreover, the idea that copying inherently harms creators assumes that exposure and sharing don’t generate value which, in the digital age, is increasingly untrue. Viral sharing can launch careers, build fanbases, and create demand for authentic experiences that can’t be copied: concerts, signed prints, behind the scenes access, or personalized interactions.
So copyright was never a fair deal. It restricted creativity, harmed sharing, and only pretended to help the public. Now, when information spreads easily and attention is what matters, it’s just an outdated tool for control.
Content IDs feel like the prelude to do rent-extraction on users who will be made to pay a subscription for the right to stream such music. The industry is conglomerating around a few big companies and they could definitely do this to a point where there are no other alternatives besides not playing copyrighted music.
Copyright is very outdated, but also very useful to capitalists even paradoxically so.
Copyright is a double-edged sword. It only “works” for them if:
Everyone is relentlessly enforcing copyright without leaving any non-copyrighted alternatives
The streamer would buy the rights to stream the music if copyright was enforced on them
Most of them aren’t true and are very hard to prove.
If the dystopia you’re talking about does happen for whatever reason, a lot of streamers might switch to playing no music, rely on environmental sounds like bird songs, use non-copyrighted music, or generate their own music via AI.
The only real winners with the status quo are the law firms and lawyers imo.
I have no doubt that some companies benefit from the current system in some circumstances, but it’s a double-edged sword for sure.
This is an interesting case, because the Pokémon Company purposely entangles the Copyright and Trademark of it’s product. For a market to work even in a no-copyright world, you do still need some trademark protections; for example, if you sell 3rd party Pokémon cards, it would have to be explicit that they are not Pokémon Company cards.