4 ms·
Sure, see all the graffiti everywhere? Laws aren't protecting that art, au contraire. The concept of copyright became stronger as lobbying and surveillance sta
by iamcurious 11y ago
Sure, see all the graffiti everywhere? Laws aren't protecting that art, au contraire.
The concept of copyright became stronger as lobbying and surveillance state became stronger.
Creative people will create regardless. Creative people who have ample free time and who don't have to think about bills much, will create more and, more importantly, more accessible works. The sophisticated thing to do is to allow copying anybody's ideas¹ and give people a guaranteed income².
¹ I think plagiarism, ie not giving credit where its due, should be punished. I'm not sure if it should fall in the realm of the law though, maybe it could be kept check under social pressure.
² If it can't be universal, then make it scholarship based, subject to renewal, or something.
- gknoy 11y ago> See all the graffiti everywhere? Laws aren't protecting that art, au contraire. Is that really true? I would have thought that the art itself is still copyrighted, but the artist is unlikely to pursue redress as that would effectively be giving evidence of a crime (graffiti).
- talmand 11y agoI would say that copyright does indeed cover graffiti, it just not likely for the original artist to sue you for selling copies of their artwork because they also possibly illegally damaged private property. Some of the Banksy stuff brings up interesting discussions around that idea. The lobbying part I can understand, and agree, but I'm lost on your surveillance state thing. All those creative people with all their creativity is covered by copyright as soon as they get done being creative. In the US at least. But whether they make money from their copyrighted creativity, that's a different problem. Copyright doesn't help me make money but it helps me prevent you from making money off my work.