Would We Have Art Without Copyright Law?
from the legal-fictions dept
Stupid, right? But I hear this argument for copyright law all the time.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: art, copyright, incentives
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Partially Subverted
Oh, wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Partially Subverted
Money would not exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Partially Subverted
To quote Matthew's Gospel: ch 22
16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Partially Subverted
Without money you can of course barter.
Also (maybe) now bitcoin enables the creation of money via crowdsourcing which is cheap enough that no funded central authority is necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Partially Subverted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Partially Subverted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Partially Subverted
Yeah, but it's more difficult, which is why money was invented in the first place. It allows me to buy something from somebody who doesn't want what I have to trade, and vice-versa.
It also means I don't have to carry cattle around to pay for my groceries. Just tuck a cow under one arm and pop into the local Quik-E-Mart for a cola.
And you thought that silver dollars were unwieldy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Partially Subverted
Money <=> taxes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Partially Subverted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Partially Subverted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Partially Subverted
Only if the silver and gold are put to some use, such as jewelry. If it's just a medium of exchange and a store of value, then it's money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Partially Subverted
And someone will have to verify the weight and quality of the metal - and will want to be paid for doing it => taxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Partially Subverted
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's; and unto human beings, what?"
-Stanislaw J. Lec
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Partially Subverted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Partially Subverted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Partially Subverted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thanks for playing, would you like another try?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Since she does pay for it herself, so far as I know, the answer would be "yes."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can play this game too.
E: I can't eat for a day.
M: Without rights...
E: I'm not entitled to earn a living.
M: Without Creative Commons...
E: I don't have a choice.
Stupid, right? But I hear this argument for copyright law all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can play this game too.
E: I can't eat for a day."
Then try actually working to earn your keep, rather than sponging monopoly rents for works you completed years ago.
"M: Without rights...
E: I'm not entitled to earn a living."
Sellers have to earn a living by marketing things people will actually buy. They are not entitled to earning a living. If you don't like it, then sell your work to someone else under contract that requires them to pay you.
"M: Without Creative Commons...
E: I don't have a choice."
Err...I don't even get what you're driving at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ironically enough, I think we wouldn't have all your art about copyright law if it weren't for copyright law. One could argue that you depend on it as much, if not more, than other artists, given that it's one of your primary, recurring themes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Been sleeping much lately?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nobody says art won't exist without copyright. What they do say is that without copyright, there may not be as much investment in art, there may not be simple and direct systems to reward artists for their efforts, and the potential is that in many cases, art that would have been created might not happen. Why? Because the artist who use to get paid (example to write a song) now has to spend their life performing their old songs to make a living, or worse, is working a 9 to 5 job to afford to live, because writing songs isn't a paying business anymore.
Would there still be music being made? Sure. It's just less and less likely to be a "profession" and more and more likely to be a "hobby", something that is done after you have worked all day to make your living.
It's the same with patents. Inventions would still happen, but there might not be as much financial incentive to work on new ideas. The risk / reward on inventing something new would no longer favor putting money on the table.
Would there still be inventions? Sure. It just is more likely to slide back to a guy in the basement tinkering (after working all day) rather than a team working to move forward.
The rest of her toon is equally pointless and ignorant, but that tends to be Nina's style.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And not anything less than, or more complicated than that.
Maybe you have a different, much more reasonable viewpoint, but then this comic isn't about you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Without copyright, they wuold not create art. This is true. But it is not true that without copyright, there would be no art. It isn't a two way piece of logic.
I sort of realized that this is why Nina (and many other people here, it seems) get so many things wrong. You hear things (or read them) the wrong way. You imply mirror logic that just does not make sense.
Without copyright, there might not be a "music industry", but there would be plenty of people playing music.
So what the people say is true: Without copyright, they would not make art. But there would still be art being made, just not by them.
It's too bad you (and Nina) just can't seem to get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The message of the maximalists is clear. "Oppose copyright and you oppose art." And that message is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There will still be art. There will still be music. There will still be fine movies like Sita.
The truth is if you oppose copyright, art doesn't disappear. It just gets incrementally harder to justify investing in making it. You make it incrementally harder for people to have the time to make it. You make it incrementally harder for artists to get paid for their efforts under common rules.
Can you please cite me a single quote like the one you posted, or did you just make it up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No it doesn't. People create without a legal need to all the time. Artists commission works. They do this without having to enforce copyrights on their consumers. Artists build portfolios of the art that they do to show their talent. Where does the copyright, the monopoly on distribution, act as a great incentive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem isn't in copyright being necessary, but that copyright allows a business model that can't exist without it. The hierarchy of art publication is thus: Publishers fund artists whom create art. The publishers sell copies of that art. They use the revenue to pay investors and artists. This has only worked so far because publishers could exclude people from copying. It follows the warped logic that this is the only way to do this and anything else will not support a flourishing art industry, which is completely false.
Artists perform labor to create art. People want artists to create art. So, logic would dictate that artists should sell their labor to create art for people who want the art. The trick of it is how to make this labor-for-pay relationship work with a mass market of customers.
You have to realize that art is communication. It's a conversation the artist has with his audience. Copyright basically acts to cut people out of the conversation, but we all know you can't stop people from talking.
Art will happen, copyright or not. Professionals can and will make a living creating art if they figure out how to sell their scarce labor supply to a mass market. The thing that will not likely survive is the publisher middlemen taking a cut of the action by standing between the customers and the artist because the artist can, and always has been able to, sell directly to his audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't you get it? Nobody is saying that. It's the ultimate anti-copyright strawman. As you said yourself, copyright exists in a way that supports a certain business model. If copyright goes away (incredibly doubtful), that business model is no longer directly supported. When you take away the structures that allow artists to enter into contracts for their works, you take away the ability for the artists to get paid easily, or to sell their rights in standard ways.
It doesn't stop art. Nobody has said that, except for the anti-copyright shills like Nina. Can you agree on that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I could swear Nina actually had a post about this here, where she goes on about how the law makes it even harder to allow art to be shown, but I can't seem to find it.
There's more litigation involved because you have to make sure to ask for permission to use pieces of work, or even to make copies in some cases. Honestly, and I say again, where does this incentive to control distribution actually help more artists make more money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How does copyright stop someone from making and distributing new art? It does not, unless the new art is just the old art.
As for "where does this incentive to control distribution actually help more artists make more money?", I would say that this could be a full semester course for some people on this site. Basically, copyright creates the framework under which a piece of art can be "owned", "lent", or "licensed". Considering that the licensing of music (the actual performance or the written music, song, lyrics, whatever) is a signficant source of income, destroying that system would clearly hurt artists. But that is only an example.
Copyright defines the rights of the artist, and in doing so, created the ability for the artist to resell those rights, and systems are in place which allow for those rights to be sliced and licensed as needed, in a standard manner that everyone involved can understand.
The other choice? Ever time an artist wants to license music, they would have to get a lawyer, draw up a custom contract, and hire people to do collections for them for the contract.
I could go on. It's safe to say that you have never created anything that needs a contract, otherwise you would understand the sort of structure that copyright brings to the table.
All this, however, still wanders away from the main point: Nobody has ever said "without copyright, there is no art".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop right there.
Copyright has always been about making a mini-monopoly on distribution. Copyright is used to prevent anyone else from profiting on Mickey Mouse other than Disney. In the art realm, it's used to prevent anyone else from making your artwork and putting it in say... France for example. The creation and distribution are as far apart as can be.
"Considering that the licensing of music (the actual performance or the written music, song, lyrics, whatever) is a signficant source of income, destroying that system would clearly hurt artists."
And what others criticize is the shifting of those words. Somehow, I doubt you've taken into consideration the new ways to make business transactions in this day and age. Just because it's licensed a certain way now, does not mean that is the way to do business in the future. Point being, newer artists seem to have a lot of success with other ways of making income. Crowdsourcing, personal appearances in front of fans along with other ways of doing business, have come up that unlock a lot more potential for artists. While copyright creates a framework, it's not the only that can be created.
"Copyright defines the rights of the artist, and in doing so, created the ability for the artist to resell those rights, and systems are in place which allow for those rights to be sliced and licensed as needed, in a standard manner that everyone involved can understand."
What's amazing is that piracy (or rather copyright infringement) continues to show us that those infringements drive the industry far more than knowing what the law is.
"The other choice? Ever time an artist wants to license music, they would have to get a lawyer, draw up a custom contract, and hire people to do collections for them for the contract."
Is that not what the music industry does now at the major labels? It seems that in order to know what your rights are, you have to be one of the Big guys.
If nothing else, you're not saying anything that helps your argument. the main ones to force a copyright are the ones with the money to pay for it. The case against Andy Baio for pixelated art is proof positive of that. Further, there's a time from ~10000 BC to 1709 AD that seems to disagree with you that copyright is needed for all financial motivation.
"It's safe to say that you have never created anything that needs a contract, otherwise you would understand the sort of structure that copyright brings to the table."
And you would be wrong. The reason I learned the DMCA and copyright law was because I was to be part of a band. At the time, I was the main one learning the law and the guys wanted to sign with a major label. When I looked at what was offered, I told them my feelings on it.
Sadly, my band split over personal differences. It is what it is. At the time, that was the main way to get through the industry. Make a name through a label, get out when the advance ran out. So I know how shady the contracts can get. I know how badly money changes friends. Copyright is a lot more insidious than you seem to think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correction, it gets harder to invest and have the time for it if you persist in using an obsolete model that was reliant on living in denial. The thing they were in denial was, that they thought they could control copying. They have been thoroughly dispossessed of that illusion.
It might be harder at first, for those reliant on the old publishing industry. That will change over time, as necessity is the mother of innovation. People will find a way to make a living on art without it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I dare you.
You won't find it. Come on big boy, admit you are wrong for once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go look up Bon Jovi's rants. Or Don Henley. Or maybe UMG talking about how piracy KILLS musicians (in that piece, they claim "the music community is at risk, as is the unique culture of American music itself.")
Then there's that famous old campaign: "HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC." Not "the music business", not "recorded music revenue" - no, it's killing MUSIC.
Or maybe look further back. Look at John Philip Souza claiming that phonographs were the beginning of a slippery slope that might one day lead to human beings forgetting how to sing.
Shall I go on, or are YOU prepared to man up and admit you've been playing dumb this whole time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess he doesn't like it when people call his bluffs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You examples are not very useful. Yes, the lack of copyright would kill those musical communities, but they would not stop art.
Care to try again big boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, and I did prove you wrong. I'm not sure what sort of goalpost-shifting trickery you are attempting here, but you asked for examples of people who claim that a lack of copyright actually threatens the continued creation of art. I supplied several, including the very blunt "HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC"
Sorry little boy (i'm assuming if i'm "big boy" that makes you "little boy" which is fitting given your affinity for tantrums - either that or you're a prostitute trying get a trick), but this is what we call "checkmate". All further rebuttal (read: desperate flailing) on your part will be seen as quite pathetic by everyone other than yourself (just a friendly warning, in case you want to save yourself more embarrassment, which I doubt)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You didn't prove me wrong, you know it.
Nina said "I hear this argument for copyright law all the time.". I asked for a citation, and got none.
I got some stuff that has been misinterpreted, or some stuff where an individual case is being used to paint the rest of the universe, but alas, nobody arguing that without copyright there would be no art.
The goal posts didn't move. It's just your usual bullshit.
Now get back to your copyright supported job, learn a few things, and please: GROW UP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except for all the ones I gave you, all of which are exactly what you asked for, despite your denial of that fact. Once again, you were quite roundly proven wrong when I called your bluff, and now you are trying to save face. But it's not working, and it's not going to work, because you are so baldly idiotic and self-serving. So please: SHUT UP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know why Mike lets you post articles here, you intentionally misunderstand stuff just to be funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We know there is no direct quote saying "without copyright there would be no art" in those words. We are talking about the very strong and clear implication of all pro-copyright rhetoric, and the emotional line that supporters use - sometimes subtly, often overtly - to sway people to their side.
If you cannot catch on to the fact that there is a very persistent "threat to art" message present, then you are really thick and really susceptible to manipulation (so it's no wonder you're so pro-IP).
Politicians must love you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Over and over again, people in the music industry have shown situations where, without copyright, a certain song or certain album might not have come into being. "Without copyright, there would not have been art" - THIS ART.
There is always a threat to specific art, not "ART" in general. People will still strum their guitars, and people will still write songs. But collaborations that may have existed because of music licensing deals, example, may not occur. Without copyright (and the structures based on it) certain art may not have happened, and may not happen in the future.
The difference is night and day, unless you are trying hard not to see it.
What you (and Nina, and a few others here) have done is try to take a factual, truthful statement (backed up with plenty of exmaples) and try to turn it into some sort of bizarre absolute that nobody can defend.
It only goes to show how far the anti-copyright people will go to twist the honest words of people for their own gain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the funniest part: you yourself are doing it while you are trying to claim that nobody does it. Your comment here makes it very clear that you don't think too highly of the sort of art that would exist without copyright - that it's only art in the loosest sense, and lacks the value of what we have today. Well, that's bullshit, and that's the point we are all making. Next time you want a citation, try looking in the mirror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My comment isn't desgined to be "derisive", only to show that "art" (you know, the actual playing or music and creation of new songs) will go on regardless of copyright. It's the point that makes Nina's statement (and your repeated repeating of it) totally wrong. Forget everything else, at a basic level, no matter what, there is always art.
You are also reading into my comments things I am not saying. That is part of the problem in trying to discuss with you, you appear to be unable to take any comment at face value, and always go off to convince yourself of some bizarre hidden meaning. Art is art, like or not like is something of personal opinion, nothing more.
Can you please try to stick to facts rather than the obviously slanted, colored, and selective use of words that you are currently engaged in? It is seriously difficult to take you seriously when it appears that you are unable to read anything without applying your own incredible biases to every statement made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To which I've responded by showing other platforms that artists can use. They don't have to do exactly what you're explaining, but they have alternatives.
The part in bold? That's subjective on your part. Artists find other ways to finance their hobbies and talents and copyright does not do this. Seriously. This is what copyright does. It stops innovation. It's a retroactive civil punishment for doing something new with older media.
Now you're demanding proof and it's been given. Or are you still denying reality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am trying to explain to Marcus what they were talking about. It is my OPINION. Am I not allowed an opinion?
What Marcus is talking about (and what Nina is stating) is something as a fact, that is not a fact, it's an opinion.
There have always been ways for musical artists to make money "outside the system". Nobody debates that. In fact, that statement makes it clear that art will continue, with our without copyright, which makes Nina's statement (and Marcus's endless repeating) even more of a lie.
I asked for proof (didn't demand anything), and no proof was given. Statements that were interpreted into a strawman were presented, but nobody has anything like "without copyright, art would no exist".
I am still waiting if you want to try again.
As a side note, Marcus stopped answering. By his logic, he must know he is beaten and just ran away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As a side note, Marcus stopped answering. By his logic, he must know he is beaten and just ran away.
Oh, no, sorry for the confusion - that was never intended as "logic", just another way to dig at you and get you more riled up because it's quite fun to watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mine is only an opinion, what I think they are trying to say. I don't claim to quote them, I don't claim that they said something they did not say.
You did. Nina did. It's called bullshit.
As for the rest of your logic, well, I call bullshit too. You seem to be full of it.
So, citation needed, or admit you are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like I said, you are welcome to your interpretation. Clearly we have differing opinions on the meaning of the statements I give as examples. "HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC" seems pretty blunt and clear to me, so I happen to think your interpretation is a bit naive. Suit yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fascinating... please explain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are people, such as say, maybe a representative from GEMA, who have explicitly clarified their position to say that no art, whatsoever would exist.
2) I accept your argument that some people do in fact, only refer to themselves when they say they wouldn't make art without copyright.
I) I then raise that with copyright, many people who would make, release, or publish art will not, or are prevented from doing so.
II) I'm not sure I believe them, about themselves. I think the grand majority would make art regardless. Maybe a small minority would altogether stop, but I doubt their existence. Copyright certainly has an impact, but the impact of creating more art than otherwise.
III) There arises the argument that without copyright, they could not make enough of a living to make art fulltime, and thus make more art with copyright. As it is, even without copyright, it is more than possible for artists to make a living. And without the tradition middlemen and the costs they entail, (and the costs they used to cover for the artist that no longer exist), we are seeing many such artists, (working without copyright protection or outright working despite copyright), crawling out of the woodwork.
IV) Copyright may, over all artists, in current form, hurt artists by reducing the potential audience for their works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
2) thanks
the rest, well, is a rant. have a nice day, but [citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In a world without copyright, artists still have their creativity and artistic drive. They can still sell their works because fans will still want to support their favorite artists (as seen by people still buying things that are otherwise free, like NIN or Radiohead albums or Jonathan Coulton songs or Cory Doctorow's writing). But in a world without copyright, middlemen lose their primary assets for extracting payments for decades on end. If they can't maximize profits on works that are x number of years old, they don't have the incentive to be in that business.
It is in the interests of the middlemen to convince consumers, artists, and politicians that art would not exist if the middlemen did not have copyright. They couch it in terms of the artists because they like for people to forget that they are not the artists, that they are not the creators of the works, that they have less to do with the creation of the works than they pretend. They are parasites that are trying to pretend they're in a symbiotic relationship with artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's what makes this such a horrible, nasty strawman, and one that much of the Techdirt faithful have bought into.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what the people say is true: Without copyright, they would not make art. But there would still be art being made, just not by them.
There are plenty of artists who shun copyright (or enforcement thereof) that make a good living. I would think that any true artist wouldn't say, "I have this great idea but nobody will pay me for it so I won't create it." If it is a great idea then you can bet someone will invest in it. This would most likely increase the quality of the output...making a clear distinction between what is good and what is crap. What you are saying is that if you claim to be a great artist then you are entitled to get paid.
As an aside, I understand that getting rid of copyright would put a lot of middle men and lawyers out of work...but what is the downside?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No more yachts and cocaine covered whores?
Won't somebody please think of the luxury goods market!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Almost everything hinges on copyright being around, it hinges on the distribution, the exposure, and the nature of the systems built around copyright to get "organized exposure". Even the "free" universe depends on it, because without exposure, who would know anyone from anyone else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Will original art still be worth more than copies?
Explosions in innovation occur when an idea is free and others can build on it.
Everything is a remix in the music world and yes the musicians should have to perform their entire life to continue to make a living.
How long does copyright last right now? Justify this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or you are using a new form of trolling... the "logical troll".... that is a scary new type: like when Skynet added real skin to the T-800s Terminators .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What a douchebag remark.
"Because the artist who use to get paid (example to write a song) now has to spend their life performing their old songs to make a living, or worse, is working a 9 to 5 job to afford to live, because writing songs isn't a paying business anymore."
Awwww...poor little songwriter has to work for a living now... fucking boo hoo.. get a job you bum!
"It's the same with patents. Inventions would still happen, but there might not be as much financial incentive to work on new ideas. The risk / reward on inventing something new would no longer favor putting money on the table. "
Then don't do it! No one fucking cares if you get paid or not. Either people will buy your crap or they wont. If you invent something, and it takes 6 months for your competitors to copy it, then that's all you should fucking get asshole! Get back on the drawing board and invent something else, and maybe you'll get another 6 months to breast feed!
"The rest of her toon is equally pointless and ignorant, but that tends to be Nina's style."
Funny, I found your comment to be pointless and ignorant and Nina's Cartoon most entertaining. But if your such an expert, lets see some of your work!
You, and the people like you, are fucking leaches on society. You think you should be paid forever for creating some stupid widget or song. Fuck you! You get as long as it takes some ass hole (Like you) to find a company in China or India to reproduce your junk and/or rip the DRM clean off of it, and stick it on some dark net/flea market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Me: no, poor little songwriter doesn't have the time to write songs anymore, because nobody is paying for them. He has to get a real job. Guess who loses? Us. Opportunity cost, you know?
You said: "Either people will buy your crap or they wont. If you invent something, and it takes 6 months for your competitors to copy it, then that's all you should fucking get asshole! "
Me: Forget 6 months. You produce it in a factory, your competitors pay the factory to "end run" some more productions for them, and they come to market before you. End of advantage.
You don't think that companies like Foxconn or Flextronics won't make it easy to run more of a product for a third party if there are no restrictions?
Oh wait, that would mean companies would take production in house to avoid the problem, raising the price of the new product to pay for all that needless duplication, pricing the new thing out of the consumer's reach. Then that 6 months is spend with a great product nobody can afford. Then a competitor reverse engineers it (or just copies it) sends it to the knock off shops, and takes the market.
As for "let's see some of your work!", are you suggesting that only cartoonists are allowed to have an opinion of Nina's work? How truly fricken lame that is!
Getting called a leach by a freetard is like a badge of honor. It's also incredibly ironic, don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is anything lost? If he won't write songs, someone else will. Someone will find a way to fill the need and make money. Fuck em, let him starve.
"You don't think that companies like Foxconn or Flextronics won't make it easy to run more of a product for a third party if there are no restrictions?
"Oh wait, that would mean companies would take production in house to avoid the problem, raising the price of the new product to pay for all that needless duplication, pricing the new thing out of the consumer's reach. Then that 6 months is spend with a great product nobody can afford. Then a competitor reverse engineers it (or just copies it) sends it to the knock off shops, and takes the market."
Your such an asshole. You can't honestly believe that companies would just pack up their toys and go home because the government won't give them a monopoly? You would have us believe that companies would refuse to innovate because they couldn't recoup their research, or production costs. I shed a tear I really do. But it's all bullshit. Companies would become ultra efficient, feeding off of each others inventions and continually taking their products to the next level..........and do you want to know why Troll? Cause if they didn't.. the asshole down the street with the widget reproducer would gladly do so.
"As for "let's see some of your work!", are you suggesting that only cartoonists are allowed to have an opinion of Nina's work? How truly fricken lame that is!"
I am suggesting, quite clearly I think, that you are an asshole. Instead of stating your point of view, and engaging in honest debate, you resorted to insulting the author. I was simply hoping you would post a link to some of your work so I could repay the favor.
"Getting called a leach by a freetard is like a badge of honor. It's also incredibly ironic, don't you think?"
Almost as ironic as watching you IP idiots press your shiny disks with all the goodies that make it impossible for your paying customers to actually use them. While the freetards have the product, usually before the paying customers, without all the crap added.
I'm going to let your dumb ass in on a bit of a secret. For the most part, the freetards and the paying customers are one in the same.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music
http://arstech nica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars
http://gizmo do.com/5394593/its-still-true-music-pirates-buy-more-music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "pirates buy more" stuff has been debunked over and over again, even here on techdirt (if you read the comments). You could replace the word "pirates" with "music fans" in each case, and it would be true. Music fans buy more music than the average person. Average folks just don't care that much, and buy music only occassionally. People who dedicate their lives to music are naturally more likely to buy music.
Imagine how much they would buy if they didn't pirate it!
"I am suggesting, quite clearly I think, that you are an asshole. Instead of stating your point of view, and engaging in honest debate, you resorted to insulting the author. I was simply hoping you would post a link to some of your work so I could repay the favor."
Holy crap, are you full of it. I disagree with Nina's cartoon, I disagree with the premise, the opening statement has already been shown to be a strawman, and I think she is just being an anti-copyright shill for using it.
You, on the other hand, are an asshole because you came to attack me personally, and not to discuss the content of the cartoon. More monkey shit to clean up, I guess.
Don't you want to spend more time posting on Torrent freak, anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Imagine how much they would buy if they didn't pirate it!"
Bullshit, complete and total bullshit. Not a single fact to prove it. Your living in a middle man dreamworld.
"Holy crap, are you full of it. I disagree with Nina's cartoon, I disagree with the premise, the opening statement has already been shown to be a strawman, and I think she is just being an anti-copyright shill for using it."
Strawman? FUCKING PROVE IT YOU SHILL! No facts, all FUD... give us some proof!
"You, on the other hand, are an asshole because you came to attack me personally, and not to discuss the content of the cartoon. More monkey shit to clean up, I guess."
Now on this, we can agree. I am an asshole. But unless your more of an idiot that I first suspected, you have to admit, it's kinda of hard to "show up" and " personally attack" an AC. I have no idea who you are, but what I do know is WHAT you are, and it fucking disgusts me to the core.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A full thread, some of the best posters on techdirt, and not a single quote.
Strawman.
It's up to you idiots to prove it isn't. None of you seem to be able to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"the opening statement has already been shown to be a strawman, and I think she is just being an anti-copyright shill for using it"
Now back it up, and show me where it has "been shown to be a strawman".
Your words not mine!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow... I've never seen such obtuse thinking from someone that shills professionally.
Anyway, my post is above. I'm sure you're going to say "that's not how it works" or something to that effect. I just find it sad how you want to move what you qualify as success in regards to you, and not the artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're just grasping for weak excuses to dismiss the cartoon as false while completely missing the barn sized message it just presented you. You're either willfully ignorant or intentionally glossing it over because it undermines your entire argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
another strawman burned for not existing in the real world...
Try again shill its fun knocking the air out of your FUD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So what investment exactly are you talking about? I'm sure that government and community funding for the arts would continue as always, seeing as that's usually not motivated by commercial concerns. Oh, but maybe lady Gaga will have to cut the budget for her shows by what - 10%? In other words by a million or so? What a sad sad day for the arts community!
In all honesty - I do see your point, but I don't think it's a good one. For one, you say that lack of copyright would turn artistic performances into a hobby rather than a profession, and that artists would only get paid for shows - well guess what? That's just what's involved in making your art into your profession! If you want to make millions of your artwork then you can't expect to write a few songs and live off it for the rest of your life.. Let's put these words into perspective - the big artists (and let's face it - they're the one's who really benefit from the current copyright laws) make millions from each show!
Less draconian copyright laws will hardly hurt artists trying to make a living, but it will hurt those trying to make millions, and that's why they (and the record labels) are trying their best to hold on to the existing laws.
And this doesn't just apply to the music industry..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
@Anonymous Coward, Aug 30th, 2011 @ 7:32am
Marcus provided a few of our best examples here (home taping is killing music). You kept babling about the fact that it's not an example of art and that's when you failed, music is a form of art (hell, even ASCII in those nfos from TPB files is art) and the home taping thing clearly has one example of the entertainment/art industry saying that no copyright would mean no art. Home taping was a breach in the copyright monopoly much like file sharing is a breach on it today.
I'm just replying to kick your 'dead corpse' =D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And they may not have a single shred of evidence that this is the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Publishers, record labels and movie studios.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trolling incoming in 3, 2, 1....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Troll Halitosis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Troll Halitosis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Troll Halitosis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Art w/o copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Art w/o copyright?
Sorry, but that appears to be the most uninformed statement I have read in a very long time. Copyright is used almost exclusively by big businesses to turn artists into prostitutes wholly preventing them from reaping any rewards from their labor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Art w/o copyright?
You're wrong, copyright protects greedy business profits on the work of actual artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Art w/o copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And please, don't come up with some troll comments on facebook or something like that. This argument implies respectable people of the entertainment industry are saying this, so please quote them.
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
www.mpaonline.org.uk/FAQ
Without copyright there would be no financial incentive for writers and composers to create...
Gee! Google is hard!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Without copyright there would be no financial incentive for writers and composers to create..."
NO FINANCIAL INCENTIVE. That doesn't say they won't create, that doesn't say others won't create, it just says that there will be no financial incentive to create.
It's a simple statement, absolutely and utterly misinterpreted and turned into a strawman.
Would you like to try again Dave? An actual quote that says "if there is no copyright, there will be no art".
Hint: It doesn't exist, except perhaps on bloggy things like Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It argues that people should only create for money. That's as much a strawman as the idea that art will go on and be better if copyirght didn't exsist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But we aren't talking about an actual quote "there would be no art" M&E is a comic + commentary. It is not quoting anyone, but it is speaking to the implication.
The implication of my quote is that no one would create or there would be a lot less creation without copyright. That gets said all the freakin time! "No financial incentive to create." 17,400,000 results from google. The implication is clear: Copyright is necessary to encourage creation. And that is what is wrong wrong wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
the proof is in your fucking face all around and you sit and deny it, LALALLA I CANT HEAR YOU
no wonder nobody takes copyright morons seriously these days except other copyright morons.... not only are you all living under this big veil of denial & deceit purely for you own gain and convenience you like to act stupid and/or poor and helpless to convince people to give you your way
such disgusting creatures, you copytards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real issue
Before a bunch of people come along and say that indie musicians that don't give a crap about copyright are best, think about the top grossing artists from the last few years. How many of them were crappy indie bands that eschewed the current copyright system? How many of them didn't use one of the major labels to get their career going, taking advantage of the current copyright law? No one cares about one crappy little opinion. The truth is that copyright law, as it stands, makes artists that people seek out and want to listen to. Call it dreck (I hate most of it), garbage, or whatever you like. The record companies launch them because of the way copyright works, and people listen to them because it is what they consider good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real issue
no u
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real issue
Because every creator of valuable works started with awesome epic creations that they did for the money and thus there is no way a crappy garage band that no one cares about besides your mom would turn into a famous band of galactic proportions making tons of money. Simply because no1 ever does anything if it isn't for money.
Your starting argument is so flawed that I didn't bother to read the rest Mr Troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zombies
Please don't pass a zombie law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did he just say, that?
For trolls who like to ignore links here is an excerpt:
Rick Carnes, the head of the Songwriters Guild of America wrote a letter to the Financial Times, responding to Engstrom, but the letter is odd, poorly supported, flat-out wrong in some spots and seems to have totally ignored what Engstrom was actually saying. Let's take a look:
Christian Engstrom of the Pirates party is absolutely correct in his assumption that Elvis's music does not belong to him. It belongs to great songwriters like Otis Blackwell, who wrote so many of Elvis's big hits such as "All shook up" and "Return to sender", and who fought for years to protect and strengthen US copyright law. Without copyright, Mr Blackwell would never have been able to create that "common cultural heritage" that Mr Engstrom wants to think of as his own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did he just say, that?
Okay, now, think really, really hard here: Why?
Quite probably because Mr Blackwell would have been working as a day labourer, or working in a bank, or perhaps running a five and dime store rather than writing music, because he wouldn't have had a way to turn his musical skills into money.
Mr Blackwell may still have written many songs in his life, for his own personal enjoyment. But without a copyright system, it is unlikely that he would have been doing it for a living, would he?
WHY is an incredibly powerful question, and without it, your quote is meaningless.
So again, there is still no quote that says "without copyright, there is no art" (use music or whatever you like in place of art), only that in this case, without copyright, Mr Blackwell would never have been in the position to create the works we all now enjoy.
So your nugget is mostly more proof that Nina's statement is a massive strawman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Did he just say, that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Did he just say, that?
FTFY.
See, it isn't that we wouldn't have art, we just wouldn't have THAT art. Maybe Elvis would have done jazz standards. Maybe he would have stayed in the military and been killed in battle. We don't know.
What we do know is that without copyright, it is unlikely that Mr Blackwell would have had the time to write the songs that Elvis made famous. Nobody suggests "art would die", just that this art would not have happened.
The difference is huge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Did he just say, that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Did he just say, that?
i bet you that it outnumbers art that wouldn't have been made with copyright 1000 to 1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did he just say, that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Did he just say, that?
Nobody suggests "art would die", just that this art would not have happened.
I can live without Justin Bieber if that's the kind of art that would never have happened you are referring to.
"Initially a five-piece line-up of Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Stuart Sutcliffe (bass) and Pete Best (drums), they built their reputation playing clubs in Liverpool and Hamburg over a three-year period from 1960." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles
So, the BEATTLES, spent 3 years without a label before their manager got them into the business. Care to explain how did they make 3 years worth of art without relying on copyright? Oh, you can't. "But... But... They signed with a big industry afterwards!" Sure, some boss saw potential in making it mainstream. But their talent was there already. Making it mainstream doesn't mean they wouldn't have composed shitloads of good songs. It means they might be less known as they were.
I believe without copyright we'd have more quality in art, generally speaking. More would do it for the love and less for the money. In the end it's good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Did he just say, that?
Quite probably because Mr Blackwell ... wouldn't have had a way to turn his musical skills into money.
I suppose what you conclude is that without copyright, musicians have no way to make money?
WHY is an incredibly powerful question, and without it, your quote is meaningless.
How so? You stated that no one was saying that art would not be created without copyright. He pointed out someone saying just that. Which you then dismiss as meaningless... And then say that art would not be created without copyright. That's convienient. I'll just quote you when I reply next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Did he just say, that?
Me: My assumption is that we would not have been in a position where a song writer could write a song and license it out to a musician to record under a simple system. Copyright brings along licensing, and standardized licensing is one of the very powerful tools that allows for there to be song writer, performers, studio musicians and session players, producers, and the like all involved in the music, and not all having to be in the same place at the same time.
It is unlikely that Mr Blackwell would have been in the business of writing music to start with, and if he was, it is unlikely that it would have been easy to strike up a contract to record the songs.
When you take the "simple" out of the system, things stop happening. Anyone who thinks the current licensing is bad should consider what it would be like if every musician and every record label and every song writer and every producer had unique contacts for each song. Imagine trying to license music when you need to deal with each person individually, and that in each case, the ownership and rights that exist are different, using different terms, and are expressed in different ways.
As for the "art created" the WHY question is important because what Nina and others are trying to say is that someone (they can't say who, apparently) said without copyright, there would be no art. My answer is (a) without copyright, there would not have been this particular piece of art, and (b) the question why is important in explaining A. It does not for a second suggest that the lack of copyrigth would stop all art. It might have gotten in the way of this one happening, but others would have happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Did he just say, that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did he just say, that?
Such a child!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did he just say, that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did he just say, that?
From Zot-Sindi, Aug 30th, 2011 @ 3:53pm
the proof is in your fucking face all around and you sit and deny it, LALALLA I CANT HEAR YOU
Srsly, there's no further proof that can be given to you aside the ones already given here, with citations. It seems to me that you are stretching the interpretation to what suits you. While I do agree that you can interpret the citations the way you did, once you read the things in context it is clear they use the arguments meaning that no copyright means no art. The citations alone might mislead you to think that they mean monetization only but try to get it into context. I really tried to be nice and go through your interpretation but it's simply not feasible.
So I'm with Marcus, pipe down, relax and read carefully without stretching it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did he just say, that?
That you guys can't understand the signficant difference is a real head shaker. It makes me understand why sometimes here it is hard to have a decent discussion.
The quotes don't say what you with they said. Can you not accept that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did he just say, that?
Ninja's reply
Chuck Norris' Enemy's reply
At this point, you've found a number of people that have replied to your response and found the answer. You continue to deny reality and ignore those claims until they satisfy YOU personally. They will not. However, as far as I see, since you have yet to actually reply to these comments with actual facts that directly contradict them, it seems you've conceded defeat in your tantrum throwin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did he just say, that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oxymoron
If you paint a painting, when you FINISHED you can copyright it if you wish, but you cannot create that art with a copyright, or copyright it before you create it.
Same with patents, you can not patent something until you invent it.
You cannot copyright a song before you write and perform that song.
Therefore all art is created without copyright, or patents, NO art is created with copyrights before its creation.
I did an electronics design in a peice of paper today, and a pencil it is a design, it is also art, but it's not copyrighted, and it never will be, it is not patented and it never will be.
Nor is it necessary for me to copyright or patent it, or to ever copyright or patent it. But I still created it !!!
Like everyone else does, does nina create her cartoons because of copyright ? or in spite of copyright ?
Nina, has is crossed you mind this :
"here is my non-copyrighted "ART", dipicting that you cannot create "art" without copyright !!"
"Ball-Point Pen" was patented, did anyone notice how there was a big restriction on ball point pens, or a 'monopoly'
on them ?
It's a shame you mostly seem completely out of touch with reality....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oxymoron
Umm, no... Copyright is automatic. It is not "if you wish"
You are right that there is no copyright BEFORE the art is created. But THE INSTANT you create it (even if "it" is just a doodle on a napkin) you are granted a copyright for your life plus several decades, whether you want that copyright or not. It is NOT "if you wish".
I did an electronics design in a peice of paper today, and a pencil it is a design, it is also art, but it's not copyrighted, and it never will be, it is not patented and it never will be.
If you did it in the United States or any other country with automatic copyright, then YES IT IS.
Darryl, listen closely: copyright is automatic. The moment you put pen to paper, you own the copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oxymoron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oxymoron
"This book wasn't finished, so I completed the last chapter, and I now own the copyrights to that book."
Am I the only one who feels like they are banging their head against a brick wall while reading darryls posts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oxymoron
My brick wall started to develop cracks in the mortar joints, so I had to stop reading darryl's comments a few months ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Art, inventions and money
We don't have any need for copyright, patents or any of the myriad BS inventions that have been put into place to service the money side of society - if we just change society into a sane version that doesn't use money at all but instead provides people with their needs out of our shared communal resources in this solar system. Money and the notion of rulers and the ruled (which, let's face it, is exactly what is going on still, to this day, in society) is a long since obsolete concept that the rulers of course do everything in their power to perpetuate. 99% of us are the losers of that particular game, yet not only do the top 1% defend it... most of the foolish wage slave peons defend the system too. Incomprehensible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
got alot of hits thought !!!
so you cannot create something without it automatically being copyrighted ! and you cannot be in love without first being married !!!!
Nina and Masnick what a great couple they will make !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: got alot of hits thought !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Software and patents-art and copyrights
Even Bill Gates said that if patents had applied to software 20 years ago, none of the computing technology that we use every day today would exist.
Art flourished long before there was such a thing as copyrights. When copyrights came along it was for the purpose of rewarding authors for their work with a limited time monopoly on their work, I think about 14 years. Copyright today has become a protection racket for big corporations which virtually control copyright law. Back in the dawn of copyright, once a copyright expired the work entered the public domain and could be used by anyone. Now the term is the life of the author plus 70 years, and for all practical purposes forever, since every time Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse is about to expire the term of copyright gets extended another 20 years. Not content with that, the term of copyright has actually been extended backward I think to about 1916 on copyrights whose terms were about to expire under old copyright law, when the new law was enacted. This means it will probably be decades (if ever) before any new works enter the public domain, by which time the media they were recorded on will have decayed and the works lost forever.
Copyright is fine if it would be used as originally intended, it is certainly not fine the way it is being used today.
'nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Software and patents-art and copyrights
Crosbie, here's your cue! ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja Paley Strikes Again ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]