4 ms·

In this universe, how are creators compensated for works of art? Who is the regulating authority? Details, please, this would be most enlightening as a thought

In this universe, how are creators compensated for works of art? Who is the regulating authority? Details, please, this would be most enlightening as a thought exercise.

3pt14159 11y ago
Everything should default to Creative Commons Non-commercial no-commercial derivatives. That way paid platforms like Netflix can exists and we can use images of Drake sitting on top of the CN Tower for memes.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  That doesn't remotely include any notion of compensation, so that's an unsatisfactory answer I have to say. Why should Netflix take money and provide a service and not pay the creators of the material they wish to make revenue from?
  - 3pt14159 11y ago
    You didn't read my comment correctly. Netflix should pay. People making memes should not. That's why I said "Non-commercial" in the default CC license.
    - chii 11y ago
      do you differentiate between the meme maker's web page which brings in revenue via ads and Netflix?
bduerst 11y ago
I think they're conflating the purpose of the two, as your questions point out. - Copyright exists to stimulate new content by allowing creators to distribute the fixed (and sometimes variable) costs of the IP. - DRM exists to fill the gap where enforcement of the copyright is not very feasible, but can negatively affect users. Maybe the solution is a better scalable copyright enforcement mechanism?
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Well that's been the issue of late, and all my submitted articles on the DMCA 512 issue that music entities (RIAA) are pushing for in the US government could have big implications here. Copyright without enforcement is no right at all - on that we should be able to agree. Thus, I believe it's a societal issue in trying to figure out an equitable balance (in this case - currently policing / take downs via DMCA, civil cases a la Beastie Boys curb stomping GoldiBlox). Now, has the scale been tilted in a lopsided way? Oh yeah, I'm no fan of Copyright becoming essentially a Corporate Legal Weapon. But...and this is a big but...killing Copyright outright also stands to injure many smaller, more vulnerable creators. I've yet to see any remotely feasable avenue to remedy it outside of "Music and movies should just be, like, free, man" like the parent asserts.
  - bduerst 11y ago
    Copyright is harder to make a corporate weapon than patents, right? The specifics of duration, situations, etc. are details that are debatable. I was thinking more along the lines of the specific problem that DRM is attempting to solve - why DRM exists - to see if there is any thoughts as the way to remove DRM completely but still solve the gap in copyright enforcement.
    - narrowrail 11y ago
      >Copyright is harder to make a corporate weapon than patents, right? Copyright is currently life of the creator+70yrs, while patents are a mere 20yrs. So, it seems copyright laws are weaponized for a longer duration.
      - bduerst 11y ago
        Did you read the next sentence? I'm talking about gaps in copyright enforcement that DRM is trying to fill.
tagrun 11y ago
This argument applies for any law. You want a "regulating authority" and you want it to be effective. I don't see how this can happen without trampling the freedoms of people, which I personally value a lot more than "creators compensated for works of art". I am saying this as a scientist. I think people should be able to share every paper/book/etc. I wrote. I refuse to think of people who share this knowledge (or some tunes) as thieves ---that's what corporations want you to believe. Scientists and artists already have other sources of income. In my view, laws tailored for publishers are hindering the progress and should be undone (see recent discussions on sci-hub, and also pirate party manifesto). I am sure this goes against the beliefs of many people here: I am a scientist, and our job long precedes industrial revolution, rise of capitalism and corporations, and their byproducts such as copyrights (in its current form) and patents whereas majority of people are a part of Silicon Valley / computer industry (and art is probably older). But I'm quite certain that in its short history, copyright laws by and large worked for big corporations and not for the good of common people. This structure was forced down through our throats, and of course it shaped today's working landscape. It doesn't mean it is fine.
Johnny_Brahms 11y ago
By people buying their creations, as usual? It is not like piracy went rampant when itunes removed drm from their files. I am also not sure how it would be solved when it comes to streaming services.

In this universe, how are creators compensated for works of art? Who is the regulating authority? Details, please, this would be most enlightening as a thought exercise.

3pt14159 11y ago

Everything should default to Creative Commons Non-commercial no-commercial derivatives. That way paid platforms like Netflix can exists and we can use images of Drake sitting on top of the CN Tower for memes.

6stringmerc 11y ago
That doesn't remotely include any notion of compensation, so that's an unsatisfactory answer I have to say. Why should Netflix take money and provide a service and not pay the creators of the material they wish to make revenue from?
- 3pt14159 11y ago
  You didn't read my comment correctly. Netflix should pay. People making memes should not. That's why I said "Non-commercial" in the default CC license.
  - chii 11y ago
    do you differentiate between the meme maker's web page which brings in revenue via ads and Netflix?

bduerst 11y ago

I think they're conflating the purpose of the two, as your questions point out. - Copyright exists to stimulate new content by allowing creators to distribute the fixed (and sometimes variable) costs of the IP. - DRM exists to fill the gap where enforcement of the copyright is not very feasible, but can negatively affect users. Maybe the solution is a better scalable copyright enforcement mechanism?

6stringmerc 11y ago
Well that's been the issue of late, and all my submitted articles on the DMCA 512 issue that music entities (RIAA) are pushing for in the US government could have big implications here. Copyright without enforcement is no right at all - on that we should be able to agree. Thus, I believe it's a societal issue in trying to figure out an equitable balance (in this case - currently policing / take downs via DMCA, civil cases a la Beastie Boys curb stomping GoldiBlox). Now, has the scale been tilted in a lopsided way? Oh yeah, I'm no fan of Copyright becoming essentially a Corporate Legal Weapon. But...and this is a big but...killing Copyright outright also stands to injure many smaller, more vulnerable creators. I've yet to see any remotely feasable avenue to remedy it outside of "Music and movies should just be, like, free, man" like the parent asserts.
- bduerst 11y ago
  Copyright is harder to make a corporate weapon than patents, right? The specifics of duration, situations, etc. are details that are debatable. I was thinking more along the lines of the specific problem that DRM is attempting to solve - why DRM exists - to see if there is any thoughts as the way to remove DRM completely but still solve the gap in copyright enforcement.
  - narrowrail 11y ago
    >Copyright is harder to make a corporate weapon than patents, right? Copyright is currently life of the creator+70yrs, while patents are a mere 20yrs. So, it seems copyright laws are weaponized for a longer duration.
    - bduerst 11y ago
      Did you read the next sentence? I'm talking about gaps in copyright enforcement that DRM is trying to fill.

tagrun 11y ago

This argument applies for any law. You want a "regulating authority" and you want it to be effective. I don't see how this can happen without trampling the freedoms of people, which I personally value a lot more than "creators compensated for works of art". I am saying this as a scientist. I think people should be able to share every paper/book/etc. I wrote. I refuse to think of people who share this knowledge (or some tunes) as thieves ---that's what corporations want you to believe. Scientists and artists already have other sources of income. In my view, laws tailored for publishers are hindering the progress and should be undone (see recent discussions on sci-hub, and also pirate party manifesto). I am sure this goes against the beliefs of many people here: I am a scientist, and our job long precedes industrial revolution, rise of capitalism and corporations, and their byproducts such as copyrights (in its current form) and patents whereas majority of people are a part of Silicon Valley / computer industry (and art is probably older). But I'm quite certain that in its short history, copyright laws by and large worked for big corporations and not for the good of common people. This structure was forced down through our throats, and of course it shaped today's working landscape. It doesn't mean it is fine.

Johnny_Brahms 11y ago

By people buying their creations, as usual? It is not like piracy went rampant when itunes removed drm from their files. I am also not sure how it would be solved when it comes to streaming services.