5 ms·
I still think you have to give authors and artists a way to make money from their works, and in principle at least copyright is helpful. But copyright seems to
by dhimes 9y ago
I still think you have to give authors and artists a way to make money from their works, and in principle at least copyright is helpful. But copyright seems to be becoming effectively perpetual and that's not helpful. And the whole scientific publishing bullshit is even worse.
- mort96 9y agoMy impression has been that the way bands make money is not from selling their music, because the record company takes most of that money, but rather from going on tours and selling people expensive tickets to experience something which is fundamentally impossible to experience through piracy.
- craftyguy 9y agoSo you found one niche that suits your argument. What should writers do, throw 'writing concerts'? How about photographers? Filmographers?
- conanbatt 9y agoWriters are not really protected copyright wise...they can always talk and explain and expand on what they write. Photographers can do requests, filmographers can naturally have rights to first showcasing.
- ge0rg 9y agoUnfortunately, tour tickets are a scarce resource and there is a whole secondary market that makes tickets even more expensive [0]. This is not an argument pro or contra copyright, just another limitation of this approach. [0] http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/vianono-how-the-secondary-ticketing-market-is-bleeding-fans-dry-and-the-bands-trying-to-stop-them-a7671351.html http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/featur...
- conanbatt 9y ago> I still think you have to give authors and artists a way to make money from their works I understand the sentiment but..why. Why is it necessary. Art and science advanced on its own long before copyright enforcement of any kind. True there are things that are particularly benefited from copyright. But they do so at the expense of something else. It diverts labor to things that later require law enforcement to protect.
- dhimes 9y agoArt advanced along fine because there was no way to copy paintings and sculptures. There was no way to record a play or orator. But that, of course, is no longer true. The advent of technologies to capture and distribute art has led to new forms of art, and with that an amazing situation where people have unparalleled access to the works of genius. However, those new forms also have a drawback: they can be easily copied and distributed without compensating the originator. So in order to keep being able to support filmmakers and novelists and musicians we need to shield them from this. Otherwise, they will stop making their works. Who is going to spend 5 years writing a novel if they can only sell one copy?
- conanbatt 9y ago> Who is going to spend 5 years writing a novel if they can only sell one copy? Hopefully no-one. Apparently there is no value to that novel unless resources are spent protecting it. We see today things that in a non-copyright world would not exist. But we dont see the things that would exist instead ,so its hard to know.
- dhimes 9y agoApparently there is no value to that novel unless resources are spent protecting it. That is a non-sequitor.
- conanbatt 9y agoWhy? If the argument is that a novel would not exist because the author cant collect value from it without copyright protection, then the value he is collecting is based on the copyright protection costs.