5 ms·

Copyright allows artists to operate in a capitalist society. It's no coincidence that the sorts of people who oppose copyright, and believe that we can live in

Copyright allows artists to operate in a capitalist society. It's no coincidence that the sorts of people who oppose copyright, and believe that we can live in a utopia where it's not necessary, tend to also believe in post scarcity, basic income, automation, etc. They just need to realize that there is a necessary ordering here. You get post copyright the moment you get post capitalism.

swsieber 11y ago
While that is true, I think this debate misses the point entirely. I want a shorter copyright length. This debate has changed it from a 'how much' into a 'all or nothing' discussion.
- cwp 11y ago
  Still, you should welcome this debate. It makes "shorter copyright length" seem like a reasonable compromise, rather than crazy and radical as the publishers would portray it.
  - Zikes 11y ago
    At the moment a proposal to completely do away with copyright is so ridiculous that it'd be like trying to reach a compromise with flat Earth theorists by saying "well maybe the Earth is just really, really flat, but still round." We should argue directly for reasonable copyright terms that still benefit the creators while also respecting the consumers. Everything else just muddles the issue.
    - mordocai 11y ago
      It's a known negotiating technique. You ask for something unreasonable that you know you can't get, then back down to something more reasonable(what you actually wanted) during negotiation.
      - Zikes 11y ago
        Yes, if you're already at the table and you have something the other person wants.
Suncho 11y ago
I don't think "post-capitalism" is possible. People will always want to trade something and there will always be markets for those things. But as technology advances, markets for certain types of goods tend to collapse as those types of goods one-by-one become abundant. The markets for copyrights and patents haven't collapsed because we have laws propping up those particular markets. Is this arrangement useful? Does copyright really allow artists to operate in a capitalist society? What do you mean by "operate"? We have the stereotype of the starving artist for a reason.
- oconnore 11y ago
  > I don't think "post-capitalism" is possible. That wasn't really my point, but now we have: a -> b & ~b => ~a > Does copyright really allow artists to operate in a capitalist society? What do you mean by "operate"? It allows them to sell the products of their labor for money. That's a pretty fundamental requirement of capitalism, no?
  - Suncho 11y ago
    It allows them to sell the products of their labor for money. That's a pretty fundamental requirement of capitalism, no? Sort of. There are plenty of things we can produce that nobody would want to buy. Capitalism doesn't really describe those things. If there's no market for pre-existing art, then it wouldn't be useful to look at it though the lens of capitalism.
humanrebar 11y ago
There is some form of capitalism whenever there is some form of property rights. Even if all of our basic needs were met, we would trade frivolities (cartoons about talking sponges?) instead of essentials.
boyaka 11y ago
Since I have to constantly see relevant xkcd links, I'll go ahead and post a relevant mimi and eunice link :) http://mimiandeunice.com/2011/08/23/legal-fictions/ http://mimiandeunice.com/2011/08/23/legal-fictions/
joesmo 11y ago
So you are saying that there was no art before copyright. That's a new one.
- oconnore 11y ago
  The missing link you're looking for is free copying. Easily copied art that was supported by a capitalist model, where the artist paid for rent, food, etc. by selling the products of his labor? Correct, that didn't happen.
  - boyaka 11y ago
    Artists can pay for rent, food, etc. without selling copyright-protected products. We already see this thriving today. Artists are supported by their fans by selling tickets to shows and merchandise. I would argue that you have less trust in free market capitalism if you have to depend on copyright.
  - joesmo 11y ago
    That's because easily copyable art didn't exist. Yet art still happened ... thus art doesn't depend on copyright.
ThomPete 11y ago
Thats the wrong premise for this discussion. An artist that paints a picture and sells it or performs a concert and sell tickets is a very different thing than someone who mass-produces posters or record a song once and sells it. And so you need to look at this from two very different perspectives to understand whats going on. An artist who make songs on Spotify available is nothing more than a businessman trying to sell a commodity as if it's a scarce resource. An artist who sell a painting can decide what price they want and is in many ways the extreme capitalist having the potential to sell a product that is completely disconnected from the labour that went into making it. The reason why we have copyright is so that I can't sell someone elses work as if it's mine and that has nothing to do with post scarcity, basic income or automation. Successful artist are successful business people. Nothing more nothing less.
- oconnore 11y ago
  So artists that do things that are easily copied (every writer, for example) are shit and deserve nothing? Only art that is fundamentally rare is worth anything? A writer cannot host a concert. There must be a way to derive value from your work when your work isn't physical or temporal (a live concert).
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    They aren't artists they are businesses. They are using technology to resell their original creation. They are selling a product not a piece of art and so of course they are going to be affected by the same technology as it renders that product a commodity more and more. Just as the truck drivers lost their jobs when the CDs didn't need to be transported back and forth anymore so will the artist loose the ability to re-sell what is fundamentally a commodity.

swsieber 11y ago

While that is true, I think this debate misses the point entirely. I want a shorter copyright length. This debate has changed it from a 'how much' into a 'all or nothing' discussion.

cwp 11y ago
Still, you should welcome this debate. It makes "shorter copyright length" seem like a reasonable compromise, rather than crazy and radical as the publishers would portray it.
- Zikes 11y ago
  At the moment a proposal to completely do away with copyright is so ridiculous that it'd be like trying to reach a compromise with flat Earth theorists by saying "well maybe the Earth is just really, really flat, but still round." We should argue directly for reasonable copyright terms that still benefit the creators while also respecting the consumers. Everything else just muddles the issue.
  - mordocai 11y ago
    It's a known negotiating technique. You ask for something unreasonable that you know you can't get, then back down to something more reasonable(what you actually wanted) during negotiation.
    - Zikes 11y ago
      Yes, if you're already at the table and you have something the other person wants.

Suncho 11y ago

I don't think "post-capitalism" is possible. People will always want to trade something and there will always be markets for those things. But as technology advances, markets for certain types of goods tend to collapse as those types of goods one-by-one become abundant. The markets for copyrights and patents haven't collapsed because we have laws propping up those particular markets. Is this arrangement useful? Does copyright really allow artists to operate in a capitalist society? What do you mean by "operate"? We have the stereotype of the starving artist for a reason.

oconnore 11y ago
> I don't think "post-capitalism" is possible. That wasn't really my point, but now we have: a -> b & ~b => ~a > Does copyright really allow artists to operate in a capitalist society? What do you mean by "operate"? It allows them to sell the products of their labor for money. That's a pretty fundamental requirement of capitalism, no?
- Suncho 11y ago
  It allows them to sell the products of their labor for money. That's a pretty fundamental requirement of capitalism, no? Sort of. There are plenty of things we can produce that nobody would want to buy. Capitalism doesn't really describe those things. If there's no market for pre-existing art, then it wouldn't be useful to look at it though the lens of capitalism.

humanrebar 11y ago

There is some form of capitalism whenever there is some form of property rights. Even if all of our basic needs were met, we would trade frivolities (cartoons about talking sponges?) instead of essentials.

boyaka 11y ago

Since I have to constantly see relevant xkcd links, I'll go ahead and post a relevant mimi and eunice link :) http://mimiandeunice.com/2011/08/23/legal-fictions/ http://mimiandeunice.com/2011/08/23/legal-fictions/

joesmo 11y ago

So you are saying that there was no art before copyright. That's a new one.

oconnore 11y ago
The missing link you're looking for is free copying. Easily copied art that was supported by a capitalist model, where the artist paid for rent, food, etc. by selling the products of his labor? Correct, that didn't happen.
- boyaka 11y ago
  Artists can pay for rent, food, etc. without selling copyright-protected products. We already see this thriving today. Artists are supported by their fans by selling tickets to shows and merchandise. I would argue that you have less trust in free market capitalism if you have to depend on copyright.
- joesmo 11y ago
  That's because easily copyable art didn't exist. Yet art still happened ... thus art doesn't depend on copyright.

ThomPete 11y ago

Thats the wrong premise for this discussion. An artist that paints a picture and sells it or performs a concert and sell tickets is a very different thing than someone who mass-produces posters or record a song once and sells it. And so you need to look at this from two very different perspectives to understand whats going on. An artist who make songs on Spotify available is nothing more than a businessman trying to sell a commodity as if it's a scarce resource. An artist who sell a painting can decide what price they want and is in many ways the extreme capitalist having the potential to sell a product that is completely disconnected from the labour that went into making it. The reason why we have copyright is so that I can't sell someone elses work as if it's mine and that has nothing to do with post scarcity, basic income or automation. Successful artist are successful business people. Nothing more nothing less.

oconnore 11y ago
So artists that do things that are easily copied (every writer, for example) are shit and deserve nothing? Only art that is fundamentally rare is worth anything? A writer cannot host a concert. There must be a way to derive value from your work when your work isn't physical or temporal (a live concert).
- ThomPete 11y ago
  They aren't artists they are businesses. They are using technology to resell their original creation. They are selling a product not a piece of art and so of course they are going to be affected by the same technology as it renders that product a commodity more and more. Just as the truck drivers lost their jobs when the CDs didn't need to be transported back and forth anymore so will the artist loose the ability to re-sell what is fundamentally a commodity.