Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the anon-in-the-lead dept
This week, both our winning comments on the insightful side came from anonymous commenters on our post about the CAFC's insane ruling overturning Google's fair use victory against Oracle. In first place, we have some thoughts on whether this goes any further:
I think Google actually might have a good shot at the Supreme court, mainly on procedural grounds. The CAFC explictly ruled that a Jury should determine fair use. A superior court normally shouldn't disregard the Jury finding, and they have noted no bad jury instructions or other reasons to disregard the Jury findings. That seems, from an outsider, to be a major misstep, the kind of which the Supreme Court has loved to smack around the CAFC for.
In second place, we've got a deeper dive into the problems of the case:
This whole argument is being framed over language that is misleading to the extreme. "Declarative code" and "Implementing code" are not industry terms; the terms every CS101 student learns are "code declarations" and "code definitions". This is important, because the phrase "declarative code" implies that code declares, when in reality, code is declared. This is perhaps the biggest source (and evidence of) confusion in CAFC's opinions (and that of the Solicitor General in his brief to the Supreme Court in the previous appeal).
Code declarations and implementations are like dictionary entries. Dictionary entries contain two parts: Syntax information (spelling, pronunciation, part of speech, etc) and the definition.
Syntax information allows writers to correctly use a word, as well as allows readers to determine if a word is used correctly. For example, if I tell you that the word feldercrump is a noun, then you can write the following sentences, and see that the sentence "I saw a feldercrump" uses it correctly, whereas "I feldercrump on Sunday" does not.
However, without the Definition, no one can extract any meaning from the sentence. You can't know what idea backs the word feldercrump. Even still, different dictionaries might contain similar but different definitions for the word, even though the syntax information stays the same.The former is equivalent to code declarations: they do not instruct computers, but rather, allow compilers, interpreters, and programmers to know how code is to be used, as well as determine whether code is used correctly, but there is no code to run or execute. Implementations, however, are the definition of a function, and consist of actual computer instructions. Any function used to implement a particular interface can be used to give meaning to a use of the interface.
For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from PaulT on our post about the rise of streaming exclusivity, in response to a commenter noting that it makes piracy the "path of least resistance":
That's all it ever is, and all it ever was. The resistance might come in the form of pricing, inconvenience, regional or format windows, language or some other factor. But, piracy usually there as the easy option. It has existed well before the internet, and it will continue to exist.
The biggest problem facing these companies is that in order to fight the problems causing this resistance, they erect more barriers (as you correctly note, DRM is one f the more recent ones). If they could just learn to make the legal routes easier than piracy they will find more success. I mean, literally the selling point for most people I know regarding services like Spotify and Netflix is because they were easier than piracy, and they're happy to pay for that. Stop trying to make them more difficult again.
Next, we've a simple anonymous response to the RIAA's boasting about all the money being made from streaming subscriptions:
In other words, that thing the RIAA fought tooth and nail to prevent from becoming a thing?
Over on the funny side, we've got a pair of anonymous winners again. In first place, it's a response to Kim Dotcom's human rights tribunal victory over the New Zealand government:
Well, the only reason New Zealand authorities withheld information from Kim Dotcom was because there was no where to transfer all of the files to.
In all fairness though after collecting years and years worth of legal documents it would have been a mega upload.
In second place, it's another response to the problem of exclusive streaming services:
Entertainers Assemble!
With so many walled-off streaming services popping up, there needs to be some kind of initiative to provide customers with access to the difference channels of content. Perhaps said services can come together to provide some universal subscription to all of the difference services under an easy to digest acronym, like for example: Content Aggregate Broadcasting Limitless Entertainment Television or CABLE TV for short.
For editor's choice on the funny side, we start out with the story of a school selling out its students first amendment rights by censoring a news article with images of some controversial art. Jeremy Lyman honed in on a different detail, after one teacher apparently apologized "on behalf of 99.9% of the teachers":
Probably wasn't a math teacher.
They've got at least 1,000 teachers at this school? What are the class sizes like?
Finally, we've got a deservedly flippant anonymous response to the accusation that we are ignoring all the arguments in favor of SESTA:
All arguments in support of SESTA, in their entirety:
- fibble dibble bop
- cluck cluck
- shrimp paste
That's all for this week, folks!
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And still the Mpaa/riaa
Old days they had..
Full production facility(they charged the ARTIST for this)
Art(they charged for)
Producing the recordings(they charged for)
Shipping, handling, distribution(they Owned it all)
What do they get?
Shipments not getting to the ones that WANTED the recordings. Ship them to Metro areas, when the country folk wanted it. And Vice versa.. HOW to get the recordings where they WOULD PAY for it..
They would ADVANCE the artist money, THEN CHARGE them for every part of creating and shipping the album, AS IT they had done it themselves, and PAID PREMIUM PRICES FOR THE SERVICES..
then pay the Artist? AFTER giving advances?? and putting them IN DEBT, to the corporation.
The Corp would also, LIMIT the number of persons they would Publicize, and advertise.. Did you ever see 1000+ adverts and songs published in 1 year, for 1000 artists?? nope.
The corp, decided it didnt want to change anything, so let others do the work and EXPLORE what could be done with the net, and STOMPED ON EVERYONE..unless they made 1-sided deals to PAY THEM LOTS OF MONEY..
Deals were abit stupid..as IF' the corp had done ANY opf it themselves??? IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PURE PROFIT.. ANd they are still pushing others to PAY MORE..as the old contracts die, they are pushing for MORE..
All this, on top of MANY artists upset with the Corps from the past, NOT PAYING THEM all the money owed..
A $20 recording, at the store, AFTER the sore profit, is Under $10..then you deduct all the stuff THEY CHARGE for..and you get down to about $1.50 to $2.. Giv e the artist about $0.50 OR LESS..WITH ALL TYPES OF REASONS why THEY SHOULD GET LESS..
now--if THEY HAD CREATED THEIR own site..
They could charge $5 for any Album they have stored from the past 100 years(yep, its about that old).. and paid about $1 per album for the service, per sale..and $50 to the artist, and ALL the rest is PURE PROFIT..(even if they do the Original recording its a 1 time cost, to distribute ########## recordings..)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
feldercrump
I tried highlight > right click > search with Google.
I'm thinking it means "I invented Email"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: feldercrump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: feldercrump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal routes easier
This line of argumentation was rejected by drafters of copyright. The law regognizes that authors cannot reach everyone in the world, and thus end users need to do additional work to reach authorised vendor. There's also significant point that use of the product is illegal outside the area of the world that cooyright owner can reach. How this reaching is done is not relevant, internet tech is as good as buying the product from local shop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legal routes easier
Then the drafters were wrong.
What kind of bullshit is this? You're telling me that if I buy a DVD in the US, then move to Asia that I then have to re-buy that DVD because it's "illegal" to watch it outside the US?
You just invalidated all your other arguments with that one statement. The internet is the great equalizer. With it you can reach all over the world, therefore there should be no place where use of a product is illegal because the copyright owner's reach is worldwide.
It also invalidates your argument about authors not able to reach everyone in the world. Guess what, with the internet, they can.
There is no reason that legally purchasing something for your entertainment should be harder, more work, and more onerous than going out and pirating it. This isn't hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Legal routes easier
The author doesn't need to use techdirt even though it is part of internet. If author is not providing service in techdirt's comment section, you're not allowed to download the product from there either.
In reality, many of the distribution channels are forbidden for many authors - only rare gems gets accepted for tv-channels or radio. If author was rejected in licensing negotiations, those channels are not allowed to provide the product at all. Any other solution would steal authors their work. End users are not allowed to obtain the product from those channels.
This is the reason why it is illegal to access products in areas of the world where author is not available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Legal routes easier
What are you smoking?
If an author self publishes their book, because the were turned down by some distribution channel, they are NOT allowed to distribute that book world wide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal routes easier
Huh? This statement doesnt make sense whatsoever.
Channel owner is not allowed to publish work of authors which they rejected in licensing negotiations.
Authors themselves can of course publish their own work. Self-publishing is not limited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Legal routes easier
Yes, and?? Your point is what? What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?
Why would anyone look to Techdirt's comment section to get anything other than some intellectual debate and a good laugh every now and then?
If I write a book and sell it on Amazon, I've instantly reached the entire world. Something doesn't have to be on every single internet service to reach the world, it just has to be on the internet, period. One service is enough to satisfy that requirement.
Name one.
This is maybe true. Though given the amount of drivel on TV lately I have to wonder. In either case that is beside the point. You're missing a third option, the internet. This is denied to no one and there is no acceptance or review to go through, it just gets published.
Not an issue if you distribute it with the internet. And let's be honest, TV and radio are hemorrhaging users. They won't die completely, but they are no longer the primary source of entertainment for the population at large.
So if I write a book and put it up for sale on Amazon, they've just stolen my property and I never get paid for it? How delusional are you?
Anyone can buy anything from Amazon.
Then please explain Amazon and every single other site on the internet that lets me access content from any where in the world. Walt Disney is dead, by your logic it should be illegal to access any of his works because he's not available any where in the world, because he's, you know, dead.
According to you, every kid today who's ever watched a Disney movie is a filthy pirate because the author isn't available where they live, despite the fact that their parents went to Walmart and paid $20 for it. If you're right and I'm wrong, then what's the difference if I pirate something or not? The author is likely not available where I live, so whether I pay for it at Walmart or download it free on the internet I'm still pirating it. So why would I pay for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal routes easier
> According to you, every kid today who's ever watched a Disney movie is a filthy pirate because the author isn't available where they live, despite the fact that their parents went to Walmart and paid $20 for it.
Well, this issue is handled so that author can be "available" also through his publisher partners. If the parents bought the movie from authorised disney vendor, then author is available in that situation. Main issue is that (part of) the money you paid to the vendor needs to somehow flow to the author. If this money flow link is somehow broken, then author "isn't available" in that situation and the purchase was illegal. While it might be difficult for end users to detect what kind of deals your fafourite shop is doing with the original author, usually those illegal shops has a pirate feeling in it, since the activity is illegal, that vendor has no incentive to make it appear legit (since that takes more effort than they want to spend for illegal activity). So it is also end users responsibility to evaluate their product vendors and reject the vendors which have pirate feeling in it. Low purchase price is one indication that something is wrong with the operation. This is why usage of stuff like piratebay which openly claims to be pirate operation is illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal routes easier
Dude, what kind of mental gymnastics do you do to come up with this stuff?
Newsflash, anyone can now self-publish through the magic of the internet and sites like Amazon. No need for archaic publishing entities and 100% of the profit goes directly to the author.
Same applies to Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc...
Newsflash, self-publishing on the internet gets 100% of that money to the author, not 1.5% to the author and 98.5% to the publisher, unlike the publishing entities you are so fond of.
No. This is not even remotely true. What about free promotions? Charity donations? Giveaways? Sales where you buy one get one free? All of those are legal ways in which you can acquire content and in every single one of those, the "money flow link" is broken. Neither the publisher, nor author, gets paid for any of those.
Try impossible.
Oh oh! This is rich! So it's illegal if it has a pirate "feeling". What the crap man? Extortion is illegal. Traditional, so called legal vendors have an extortionist feel because they charge me WAY too much for their content. $20 for a DVD? Feels like extortion to me, therefore it must be illegal. I better not buy from Walmart/Bestbuy/Target/Shopko/etc... ever again. Just because something feels wrong doesn't make it so. You need proof, not just a feeling.
You really have no idea how this works do you? So explain all the sites where you illegally buy products that simulate a legit website? Or even brick and mortar.
No. You can't say "well it doesn't feel legit so it must not be". What kind of bogus logic and reasoning is that. You don't feel legit so you must not be.
No, that's absolutely wrong. It CAN be but doesn't automatically mean it is. Sale price, to lower negotiated price with the author, to buying in bulk can ALL be legitimate reasons for a lower purchase price.
Yeah, because they do illegal stuff. Newsflash though, there are many sites identical to the pirate bay that don't do illegal stuff. In fact, you can use the pirate bay and never do anything illegal because they also host legal stuff, as long as you don't download the illegal stuff, you're fine. Torrenting is not illegal in and of itself. If you use it to download illicit content that act is illegal, but not the use of the service overall.
I am astounded by your total ignorance or willful and deliberate shilling for such blatant and false information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal routes easier
Unfortunately this doesn't work right. If you self-publish, for example put the product to your homepage and bump up your google search ranking, you're going to get maybe 2 people visit your homepage. Publisher partners are needed to increase the chance that end users see your product in context where they have chance to part with their money in exchange of the awesome product.
> What about free promotions? Charity donations? Giveaways? Sales where you buy one get one free?
They might all be illegal? Your society is built on illegal activity?
> so called legal vendors have an extortionist feel because they charge me WAY too much for their content.
Pirate operations can always offer cheap product, because they stole the product and doesn't give part of the money to the author. This is like stealing a car, and selling it quickly. Once police finds out who bought the car, they'll return the product to its rightful owner, and only the criminal masterminds get your money and you really have no product. (worst case pirates claim "copying" the product in this situation somehow fixes the problem that author didn't get the money but the money went to criminals)
> > While it might be difficult for end users to detect what kind of deals your fafourite shop is doing with the original author
> Try impossible.
This is why authors need your help with detecting wrongdoing. Once there's all customers checking their product vendors for violations in labor laws, environmental laws, copyright laws etc and companies get bad reputation when these signals gets strong enough to reach newspapers, those pirate operators need to flee to another country and build their illegal operation from scratch, leaving legit operations better position than the illegal vendors. But it really needs customers to help catch the criminals.
> You can't say "well it doesn't feel legit so it must not be".
Customers who are in contact with the criminals have better knowledge of their operation than what author can do from his ivory tower - mere distance to the author makes it impossible for author alone find the illegal stuff. Thus when you find criminals, you need to report their existence so that they can be located and their activity stopped before it causes real damage.
> In fact, you can use the pirate bay and never do anything illegal because they also host legal stuff, as long as you don't download the illegal stuff, you're fine.
Mixing illegal stuff with legal stuff is a plot from criminal masterminds who want to keep false impression of legality. Problem is that _every_ instance of illegal stuff is illegal and it must not happen. While using some product/platform, if you find that you need to find the legal stuff from between tons of illegal stuff, there's big chance that you just cannot detect all the ways these scammers are trying to take your hard earned cash. Once you go this path, you need to consider if you should switch your provider to more legal alternative. It might be a little more work for you to find legal alternative, but it's worth the effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal routes easier
Producing a great work is not by itself enough to make a living from creative endeavors. You need to escape from the obscurity in which all creators start. An audience will not come to you, but rather you have to go to them using the social media tools of the Internet, and allow them to at least sample your work before they will buy it.
Further, making a living from creative works is not guaranteed, and the advice given to most authors is still true today, and that is: "Do not give up the day job". Also do not expect one work to make your fortune, as that as rare as winning the lottery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal routes easier
You have heard of sites like Amazon, ebay, Youtube, Spotify, etc... You can publish your stuff on those sites and others for free or extremely cheap, depending on options, and your stuff will be instantly seen by thousands, hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people in a short period of time. No muss, no fuss, no messing around with Google rankings. Your argument is disingenuous at best.
So now you're saying it's illegal for authors and publishers to give out free copies as part of promotion? Giving stuff away for free isn't illegal, especially if you own the stuff you are giving away. Game makers do this all the time. They'll give away a bunch of game keys to promote their game. Book authors do the same thing at promotional events. I could go on.
True, but there's no reason that says every legitimate product has to be horribly expensive either. I pay $10.00 per month for Netflix. In return I get thousands of movies and shows that I can watch as much as I want. If I had to buy each individual movie and show, it would cost millions of dollars. Netflix isn't a piracy outfit, but they offer the same content for much cheaper and easier access than buying a physical copy. Your argument is invalid.
I honestly can't believe you're serious right now. Nobody is going to take the time to check through all of that just to buy some entertainment. Nor should that be a requirement. That is doing the work of the author and enforcement agencies for them. If you happen to come across a place that is selling illicit goods, sure, report them, but no one should have to do a full on background check on the place they want to buy something from. People do not have the time to do that, nor money, because honestly looking into that kind of stuff is not cheap. This is just unbelievable.
Oh? Which ones would those be? The ones who pay outrageous prices at their local Walmart for a Disney movie?
Not a bad thing. When I run across one I'll let you know. But I'm not going to go out looking for one every time I purchase something off Amazon or Walmart.
This damage being legacy publishers raking in billions of dollars a year by charging exorbitant prices to paying customers? That damage? Because let's be honest, the amount of sales lost by piracy is a drop in the bucket and probably not even noticed.
This is the part where we throw our heads back and laugh. Ready? Ready! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!
Figure that out on your own did you?
So now we're all idiots because you think no one is smart enough to tell legal from illegal?
No. As long as the site itself does not actively engage in illegal activity, what reason should I have to switch if I'm getting what I need legally from them? I bet you could find a bunch of illegal stuff on big sites like Amazon, ebay, and such. Does that mean I should stop using them? In many cases I can only buy what I need from those sites. Some authors only self-publish to Amazon. If I stop using the site, I can't get that legal content anymore. Your argument is ludicrous, and invalid.
Nope, it's not worth the effort, and as I stated above, in many cases impossible to find another alternative that is just as legal as the one I'm using now.
Game makers, such as Blizzard, use torrents to distribute game updates. Linux ISOs are distributed over torrents. I could go on. There are many legitimate uses for torrenting that far outnumber the illegal ones.
As I have now utterly destroyed all your arguments, I only have this final statement to you:
You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you absolutely have been found wanting. Welcome to the new world called the internet! May the gods of the internet save you, if it should be right for them to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal routes easier
If their site has _any_ illegal stuff in it, maybe they took larger responsibility than they can actually handle. Proper sites are very accurately filtering out illegal stuff from their own catalog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal routes easier
That is ludicrous. Any platform will be abused, no matter how hard you try to prevent it, by anyone determined enough.
Name one site that has ZERO illegal items on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal routes easier
> That is ludicrous. Any platform will be abused, no matter how hard you try to prevent it, by anyone determined enough.
Abuse is one of the smallest of their problemms. If they can't handle even that, then there's no point in their service. The real issues come with _all_ the requlations that are available, not just some small copyright abuse. But if their legal "net" is failing so that customers can detect it, you'll find HUGE gaps in the actual following of the regulations that are available. Every industry has their own rules the professional people need to follow, and if their operation is visibly failing in the small details - it indicates that the service isn't feeling well.
If professional people creating the services need to resort to illegal operations to keep their platform up and running, opening their operations will reveal something so huge horror practises that there will be tons of legal paperwork and popcorn for punters when their service is at the end of it's life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal routes easier
Ah, I see you can't prove me wrong so therefore you have resorted to hand waving and attempting to change the subject.
With this logic we should all still be living in the stone age because every service ever designed (electricity, water lines, telephone lines, cell service, gps, radio, TV, telegraph, printing press, megahorn, soapbox, etc..) has been abused and continues to be abused for those that are still around.
Who said they were resorting to illegal operations? Nobody. And they aren't. But people can use their services for illegal purposes. Just like terrorists can use electrical service to run their computers and lights to plan attacks. So can someone post a book for sale on Amazon for $30 and ship the buyer a stack of bootleg DVDs. How would Amazon ever know? Abuse is not a simple thing to detect and filter out as you suggest. Anyone who believes otherwise is either naive, ignorant, or deliberately lying.
I'll make this easy for you and expand my statement. EVERY thing ever made by humans, whether it be boats, planes, trains, cars, smartphones, lightbulbs, water bottles, headsets, shoes, roads, food, electricity, the internet, whatever!!! You name it and it can, has, and will be abused, without exception. Period. Full stop. You can't stop it, no one can. You can mitigate it but never stop it.
I dare you to name one thing that hasn't been abused in some way shape or form. Go ahead, I'll wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal routes easier
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal routes easier
This rejection in internet happen via internet distribution not providing enough money for authors. Authors just demand more money in exchange of internet distribution rights. If the money isn't appearing to author's door, the author can easily decide that it's not economically profitable to provide the product though the internet channel. After this decision, any further distribution via internet is illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal routes easier
After this decision, any further distribution via internet in other works that aren't covered by a contract is illegal*.
Remember, it's all up to the pact that he has signed with the Devil.
Btw, you're mistaken in one thing: copyright isn't there to make sure that the authors get paid, but the copyright holders.
*That's, of course, if he hasn't signed (or been made to sign, publishers have that power) all the copyrights for his works for the years to come or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal routes easier
That logic only applies to self publishers, while where they have a contract with a legacy publisher that allows Internet distribution, the Author has no control over the distribution. Then they can only take the issue up with his publisher. However best of luck to them if they try that, as they are likely to run into all the tricks of Hollywood accounting.
For instance, the label artists complaints that they do not receive enough money from Spotify is not a problem with Spotify, but rather a problem with the amount that the labels keep from the payments that they receive from Spotify. Indeed it looks like the Labels wish to drive Spotify out of business by demanding more than it can afford to pay by way of license fees, while minimizing what they pay to artists so that the artists demand more license fees from Spotify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legal routes easier
Copyright was, and should be about the production of copies, and not the control over those copies once they have been sold.
Also, in the Internet world, patronage rather than copyright is becoming the most effective way of supporting creators, and allow anybody on the Internet to send money to those people they want to support in the creation of new works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legal routes easier
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Legal routes easier
Well, if author is nowhere to be found, you just need to choose a product from some other author. You can't get a freebie simply because you couldn't locate the author.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Legal routes easier
I guess that prospect gives you a severe allergenic reaction so you apparently don't think that exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal routes easier
70 years old products digged from author's attic has certain feel in them which isnt gaining popularity among young people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal routes easier
At least have some argument that isn't so easily disproved. Your obvious lack of legal knowledge is getting old. Especially when you have to default to petulant insistence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How could that ever work?
Where would Beethoven ... Boswell ... Cervantes ... Dante have been without copyright? How much of that creative output would have been lost forever if they'd had to depend on patronage? And what would it have been like if Shakespeare had to depend on live audiences for his income? And you can't think only of artists in the free world! How about people living under dictatorships--Solzhenitsyn, Anne Frank, John Bunyan? What incentive would they have had to write?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Either you need a /s or you epicly failed history.
Exactly where they are today. Copyright either didn't exist back then or was in its infancy when they were producing, depending on which one you are talking about.
None, most artists back then only had patronage to rely on. Mass production and royalties didn't exist. In order for them to get paid, they had to actually perform. They didn't perform unless people paid them. Kind of the definition of patronage.
He did rely on live audiences for his income since he mostly wrote stage plays.
Ummm, John Bunyan didn't live under a dictatorship. At least not in the sense that others did. Monarchy? Yes. But not a dictatorship as such. Regardless of that, for some of them they wouldn't even likely be eligible for copyright when they wrote their works. Especially Anne Frank since her works weren't even published until after she died.
I'm really hoping you just needed a /s, and based on some of your statements I'm guessing that's the case. If not, see the above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]