3 ms·

To build a solid financial foundation, you have to own something. Otherwise you are a service employee. Take away copyright and only the owners of financial and

by api 11y ago

To build a solid financial foundation, you have to own something. Otherwise you are a service employee. Take away copyright and only the owners of financial and physical capital can own anything. This is the "everyone is now a service worker" feudal world. The models you describe depend on copyright. It's why I can't go to Kickstarter, copy all the work of a successful artist, and then do my own fund raisers and take their proceeds. I argue so hard against this stuff because I used to believe it. Then I thought it through.

chongli 11y ago
The models you describe depend on copyright. No, they don't. Many of these artists receive their patronage and give all of their work away for free. It's why I can't go to Kickstarter, copy all the work of a successful artist, and then do my own fund raisers and take their proceeds. Why don't you try that and see how it works? Society operates on more than laws, it also operates on norms. Doing what you just described would make you a social outcast and open you up to widespread social retaliation; the legal system need not apply.
- archgrove 11y ago
  This model still depends on copyright. Yes, they give it away for free, but that's _cost freedom_, not _copyright freedom_. Without copyright, I can take all their works, strip off their name, put them on my own site, add a tip jar of my own and take their donations.
  - kiba 11y ago
    How long will that last before people found out that you cheated off an author? Why would readers want to tipjar a person who stole credits from the original author?
    - gress 11y ago
      What stops the cheat from accusing the original author of being the thief as a preemptive move?
      - kiba 11y ago
        What prevents lot of cheats popping up and accusing each other as a preemptive move? Also, it's pretty easy to identify who's the original author. Simply, the person who posted it first is very likely the original author. Especially so if the author has a portfolio of works that identify the author.
      - monort 11y ago
        Author can put a hash of their creation on blockchain before publishing.
    - anigbrowl 11y ago
      Most consumers don't care. If you get caught ripping off someone else's work, then you go out of business and open up the next day under a different name. Some buyers will take the part of the infringer because that was what they bought into in the first place and they don't want to deal with the cognitive dissonance of admitting they were ripped off. If you go to the legal sections of the Hollywood trade papers, you find there are always a couple of ongoing disputes over the original authorship of hit movies. Even where the authors may have strong cases, the general public has little interest in them and fans of the director or actors will often denounce the plaintiffs as scam artists. For example, there's a $10 million suit against Warner Brothers of the film Gravity. Tess Gerritsen, a writer, alleges that the film film depicts the major events in a book she worte in 1999 and optioned to a film production company. The problem is that in the meantime that company no longer exists after a bunch of acquisitions, mergers and so on, and although there's good reason to think her book wound up in the hands of the film's writer/director and that the film is indeed derivative o the book, her legal problem is an inability (at present) to prove that Warner Brothers is the ultimate beneficial owner of the firm she was dealing with back in 1999. The problem here is not so much copyright as a lack of transparency in corporation law.
      - chongli 11y ago
        For example, there's a $10 million suit against Warner Brothers of the film Gravity. Tess Gerritsen, a writer, alleges that the film film depicts the major events in a book she worte in 1999 and optioned to a film production company. The problem is that in the meantime that company no longer exists after a bunch of acquisitions, mergers and so on, and although there's good reason to think her book wound up in the hands of the film's writer/director and that the film is indeed derivative o the book, her legal problem is an inability (at present) to prove that Warner Brothers is the ultimate beneficial owner of the firm she was dealing with back in 1999. The problem here is not so much copyright as a lack of transparency in corporation law. Isn't this direct evidence against the claim that "copyright protects individuals against big corporations"? If it weren't for copyright, Warner Brothers would collapse and we'd be back to holding each other accountable on a personal level.
        11y ago
  - vilhelm_s 11y ago
    Many countries distinguish between copyright and "moral rights", where the latter includes things like being correctly identified as the author of the work, not having the work exhibited in demeaning circumstances, etc. You could (and in my opinion, definitely should) keep those laws even if you abolished copyright.
geofft 11y ago
> The models you describe depend on copyright. It's why I can't go to Kickstarter, copy all the work of a successful artist, and then do my own fund raisers and take their proceeds. Kickstarter and Patreon fund future work, not past work. This is actually what makes them so much better than the copyright-publisher model, because they prevent that exact scenario that you describe. If I record some music, sign it to a label, and then leave, the label owns the rights, and payments for copies of that music goes to them. If I record some music, give it away for free, and advertise a Kickstarter for my next album, nobody gains anything from trying to sell my previous album. You're not paying for a copy of a work that was already worked; you're funding the promise of me doing more work, and that promise has to come from the person who is actually doing the work. So the money has to go to the person actually doing the work. Since there is no copy involved, copyright doesn't help. If I'm not funded and take some boring desk job, zero copies will exist.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  If I record some music, sign it to a label, and then leave, the label owns the rights, and payments for copies of that music goes to them. I notice you're leaving out the part where the label gives you money in return for those rights, as well as your ability to negotiate the terms of the agreement you sign. If I record some music, give it away for free, and advertise a Kickstarter for my next album, nobody gains anything from trying to sell my previous album. What's better about that? You're not engineering an outcome in which you get paid, you're engineering an outcome in which nobody makes any money, and you think that by doing so you've now brought the publishers down to your level and so you've achieved some kind of economic parity. You're basically saying that best strategy for people in the arts is to do a bunch of work for nothing, hope that it becomes popular (by doing additional unpaid work on marketing) and then go on strike.
norea-armozel 11y ago
You own your labor. It's not unlike any other job where you have to put in time to get something out of it. As a programmer, I don't own any line of code or algorithm which I leverage. I am skilled labor, pure and simple. And you as an artist are also skilled labor. The question should be how to monetize your labor? That answer isn't easily given but I can guess it would require a whole new method of payment. For example, a musician in the vast majority of cases lives from the money earned in performances as very few are writers of their own songs (that's where the current money is found in terms of the music industry). Thus, musicians would monetize as they always have, through payment for performances. It's when you get into writing lyrics or entire songs (sheet music plus lyrics) is where things may become complex. If the writer and musician are the same person then the person would have to default to performances to ensure some measure of payment. As for the song itself, that would be something left to the creator to figure out. As for writing books, well that's even more complex at least in terms of reprints. But first runs would still go through publishers like Amazon which means there's some guarantee of revenue (just not to the projected sums you may assume). But today's small time writer isn't working the gravy train any more than the musician is. If anything, both musician and writer are just could/would be profiteers. It's blind luck either profession finds success. Copyright doesn't offer much in the way of protection. What happens now is that human beings in general value your work. Thus pay you as we do now. Copyright is just the formality to prevent non-payment from other parties such as publishers. Copyright today isn't much of a benefit even there since many publishers write contracts to their advantage. What should happen is that copyright should largely (and in my opinion solely) apply to companies. And it should be by default that the majority of all proceeds be held in trust to the creator of the work even if the company in question offered the means to produce said proceeds. I think this approach would go further to ensure artists and content creators have a better chance at a livable wage. But it shouldn't include lifetime of the creator plus X years in any capacity. It should be up the creator of the work to register for the copyright as before the 1970s. And it should be easy as filling out a form on the web with a copy of the original work in question for verification with the US Copyright office or its analogs in other countries.
- api 11y ago
  If you only own your labor, you are a serf.

by api 11y ago

chongli 11y ago

The models you describe depend on copyright. No, they don't. Many of these artists receive their patronage and give all of their work away for free. It's why I can't go to Kickstarter, copy all the work of a successful artist, and then do my own fund raisers and take their proceeds. Why don't you try that and see how it works? Society operates on more than laws, it also operates on norms. Doing what you just described would make you a social outcast and open you up to widespread social retaliation; the legal system need not apply.

archgrove 11y ago
This model still depends on copyright. Yes, they give it away for free, but that's _cost freedom_, not _copyright freedom_. Without copyright, I can take all their works, strip off their name, put them on my own site, add a tip jar of my own and take their donations.
- kiba 11y ago
  How long will that last before people found out that you cheated off an author? Why would readers want to tipjar a person who stole credits from the original author?
  - gress 11y ago
    What stops the cheat from accusing the original author of being the thief as a preemptive move?
    - kiba 11y ago
      What prevents lot of cheats popping up and accusing each other as a preemptive move? Also, it's pretty easy to identify who's the original author. Simply, the person who posted it first is very likely the original author. Especially so if the author has a portfolio of works that identify the author.
    - monort 11y ago
      Author can put a hash of their creation on blockchain before publishing.
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    Most consumers don't care. If you get caught ripping off someone else's work, then you go out of business and open up the next day under a different name. Some buyers will take the part of the infringer because that was what they bought into in the first place and they don't want to deal with the cognitive dissonance of admitting they were ripped off. If you go to the legal sections of the Hollywood trade papers, you find there are always a couple of ongoing disputes over the original authorship of hit movies. Even where the authors may have strong cases, the general public has little interest in them and fans of the director or actors will often denounce the plaintiffs as scam artists. For example, there's a $10 million suit against Warner Brothers of the film Gravity. Tess Gerritsen, a writer, alleges that the film film depicts the major events in a book she worte in 1999 and optioned to a film production company. The problem is that in the meantime that company no longer exists after a bunch of acquisitions, mergers and so on, and although there's good reason to think her book wound up in the hands of the film's writer/director and that the film is indeed derivative o the book, her legal problem is an inability (at present) to prove that Warner Brothers is the ultimate beneficial owner of the firm she was dealing with back in 1999. The problem here is not so much copyright as a lack of transparency in corporation law.
    - chongli 11y ago
      For example, there's a $10 million suit against Warner Brothers of the film Gravity. Tess Gerritsen, a writer, alleges that the film film depicts the major events in a book she worte in 1999 and optioned to a film production company. The problem is that in the meantime that company no longer exists after a bunch of acquisitions, mergers and so on, and although there's good reason to think her book wound up in the hands of the film's writer/director and that the film is indeed derivative o the book, her legal problem is an inability (at present) to prove that Warner Brothers is the ultimate beneficial owner of the firm she was dealing with back in 1999. The problem here is not so much copyright as a lack of transparency in corporation law. Isn't this direct evidence against the claim that "copyright protects individuals against big corporations"? If it weren't for copyright, Warner Brothers would collapse and we'd be back to holding each other accountable on a personal level.
      - 11y ago
- vilhelm_s 11y ago
  Many countries distinguish between copyright and "moral rights", where the latter includes things like being correctly identified as the author of the work, not having the work exhibited in demeaning circumstances, etc. You could (and in my opinion, definitely should) keep those laws even if you abolished copyright.

geofft 11y ago

> The models you describe depend on copyright. It's why I can't go to Kickstarter, copy all the work of a successful artist, and then do my own fund raisers and take their proceeds. Kickstarter and Patreon fund future work, not past work. This is actually what makes them so much better than the copyright-publisher model, because they prevent that exact scenario that you describe. If I record some music, sign it to a label, and then leave, the label owns the rights, and payments for copies of that music goes to them. If I record some music, give it away for free, and advertise a Kickstarter for my next album, nobody gains anything from trying to sell my previous album. You're not paying for a copy of a work that was already worked; you're funding the promise of me doing more work, and that promise has to come from the person who is actually doing the work. So the money has to go to the person actually doing the work. Since there is no copy involved, copyright doesn't help. If I'm not funded and take some boring desk job, zero copies will exist.

anigbrowl 11y ago
If I record some music, sign it to a label, and then leave, the label owns the rights, and payments for copies of that music goes to them. I notice you're leaving out the part where the label gives you money in return for those rights, as well as your ability to negotiate the terms of the agreement you sign. If I record some music, give it away for free, and advertise a Kickstarter for my next album, nobody gains anything from trying to sell my previous album. What's better about that? You're not engineering an outcome in which you get paid, you're engineering an outcome in which nobody makes any money, and you think that by doing so you've now brought the publishers down to your level and so you've achieved some kind of economic parity. You're basically saying that best strategy for people in the arts is to do a bunch of work for nothing, hope that it becomes popular (by doing additional unpaid work on marketing) and then go on strike.

norea-armozel 11y ago

You own your labor. It's not unlike any other job where you have to put in time to get something out of it. As a programmer, I don't own any line of code or algorithm which I leverage. I am skilled labor, pure and simple. And you as an artist are also skilled labor. The question should be how to monetize your labor? That answer isn't easily given but I can guess it would require a whole new method of payment. For example, a musician in the vast majority of cases lives from the money earned in performances as very few are writers of their own songs (that's where the current money is found in terms of the music industry). Thus, musicians would monetize as they always have, through payment for performances. It's when you get into writing lyrics or entire songs (sheet music plus lyrics) is where things may become complex. If the writer and musician are the same person then the person would have to default to performances to ensure some measure of payment. As for the song itself, that would be something left to the creator to figure out. As for writing books, well that's even more complex at least in terms of reprints. But first runs would still go through publishers like Amazon which means there's some guarantee of revenue (just not to the projected sums you may assume). But today's small time writer isn't working the gravy train any more than the musician is. If anything, both musician and writer are just could/would be profiteers. It's blind luck either profession finds success. Copyright doesn't offer much in the way of protection. What happens now is that human beings in general value your work. Thus pay you as we do now. Copyright is just the formality to prevent non-payment from other parties such as publishers. Copyright today isn't much of a benefit even there since many publishers write contracts to their advantage. What should happen is that copyright should largely (and in my opinion solely) apply to companies. And it should be by default that the majority of all proceeds be held in trust to the creator of the work even if the company in question offered the means to produce said proceeds. I think this approach would go further to ensure artists and content creators have a better chance at a livable wage. But it shouldn't include lifetime of the creator plus X years in any capacity. It should be up the creator of the work to register for the copyright as before the 1970s. And it should be easy as filling out a form on the web with a copy of the original work in question for verification with the US Copyright office or its analogs in other countries.

api 11y ago
If you only own your labor, you are a serf.