3 ms·

> none had any power in that relationship at all. As compared to the power that authors have in their relationship with publishers now? At least the relation

> none had any power in that relationship at all. As compared to the power that authors have in their relationship with publishers now? At least the relation of an artist with their patron was on a one-on-one personal level; they could influence their patrons and convince them to have their way on an emotional level. Try that when you're paid by a corporation. I predict a future of performing arts for writers as well. Roleplaying games show us that doing such thing is possible, and creative platforms for storytelling will allow artists to perform live experiences for an audience. "Experience builder" may very well be the future of what we call "writers" now, and the media that will allow it already exists; in that media, it's not unreasonable to think that people will pay to have the experience tailored for them in real time, even if recorded copies of such experience are then instantly distributed for free to the world.

anigbrowl 11y ago
Well, if a publisher defaults on a contract with me, I have a legal remedy. I sell or lease my property interest in a piece of creative work in return for some valuable consideration, usually money. If the publisher fails to deliver I can ask a court to enforce the terms of the contract. Is it ideal, no. But I certainly prefer it to the feudal model you propose returning to. I predict a future of performing arts for writers as well. Roleplaying games show us that doing such thing is possible, and creative platforms for storytelling will allow artists to perform live experiences for an audience. If I wanted to do live performance then I would have pursued a career in theater. The existence of other possibilities does not unilaterally justify the unilateral abolition of one economic mechanism (copyright) so as to privilege consumer interests over those of producers. Perhaps you don't enjoy reading novels or consuming stories with fixed narratives (rather than interactive games), but lots of people do enjoy that, and there is a distinct skill in the construction and development of such narratives. Would you go to a farmer and say 'the food you grow should be free for the taking to anyone passing your field, after all the earth is bountiful and you can simply grow more food in the future so ownership of food is inherently meaningless. If you are just farming for the money, you could always go and work in a coal mine instead.'
- TuringTest 11y ago
  Copyright is not a tool created in the interest of producers, it's primarily in the interest of distributors. Technology has changed for good; when almost everybody carries in their pocket a machine for creating perfect copies of any kind of information, it's basic economy that the value of a copy reduces to nothing. It's the world which has moved on, not a desire to inconvenience authors; legislation needs to reflect that change. The value of original creation is worth something, but forcing people to buy copies in order to sustain such original creation is a market inefficiency; better processes need to be found, which are more well adapted to the way people behave. A more apt analogy to your farmer example would be if everybody would carry Star Trek matter replicators on them. The farmer would not have a right to send cops to tie the hands of everyone passing by one of their tomatoes, or near any copy of a copy of the tomatoes, so that the walker can't create a copy for their consumption and thus have no need of paying for the original.

anigbrowl 11y ago

Well, if a publisher defaults on a contract with me, I have a legal remedy. I sell or lease my property interest in a piece of creative work in return for some valuable consideration, usually money. If the publisher fails to deliver I can ask a court to enforce the terms of the contract. Is it ideal, no. But I certainly prefer it to the feudal model you propose returning to. I predict a future of performing arts for writers as well. Roleplaying games show us that doing such thing is possible, and creative platforms for storytelling will allow artists to perform live experiences for an audience. If I wanted to do live performance then I would have pursued a career in theater. The existence of other possibilities does not unilaterally justify the unilateral abolition of one economic mechanism (copyright) so as to privilege consumer interests over those of producers. Perhaps you don't enjoy reading novels or consuming stories with fixed narratives (rather than interactive games), but lots of people do enjoy that, and there is a distinct skill in the construction and development of such narratives. Would you go to a farmer and say 'the food you grow should be free for the taking to anyone passing your field, after all the earth is bountiful and you can simply grow more food in the future so ownership of food is inherently meaningless. If you are just farming for the money, you could always go and work in a coal mine instead.'

TuringTest 11y ago
Copyright is not a tool created in the interest of producers, it's primarily in the interest of distributors. Technology has changed for good; when almost everybody carries in their pocket a machine for creating perfect copies of any kind of information, it's basic economy that the value of a copy reduces to nothing. It's the world which has moved on, not a desire to inconvenience authors; legislation needs to reflect that change. The value of original creation is worth something, but forcing people to buy copies in order to sustain such original creation is a market inefficiency; better processes need to be found, which are more well adapted to the way people behave. A more apt analogy to your farmer example would be if everybody would carry Star Trek matter replicators on them. The farmer would not have a right to send cops to tie the hands of everyone passing by one of their tomatoes, or near any copy of a copy of the tomatoes, so that the walker can't create a copy for their consumption and thus have no need of paying for the original.