4 ms·

There are a lot of great artists who put out work that doesn't catch on until 5+ years after they make it. It seems like a large social problem if such creators

There are a lot of great artists who put out work that doesn't catch on until 5+ years after they make it. It seems like a large social problem if such creators can't be rewarded for their work; given that this kind of work is usually the most innovative, it could lead to a creative stagnation.

olau 9y ago
To some extent I think you're right. But the problem, just like with patents, is that there a many kinds of actors in our modern world, including large companies who couldn't really care less. A company like Disney would, I think, be more motivated by a 5 or 10 year copyright period, as it would require them to keep on producing and innovating. If we're talking about great, innovative artists, I think few of them actually benefit much from the copyright system anyway.
- maldusiecle 9y ago
  > If we're talking about great, innovative artists, I think few of them actually benefit much from the copyright system anyway. This is a really stunning claim and one that needs a lot more defense than you're giving it. I can think of countless innovative musicians, film directors, and authors who benefit from selling back catalog that's 10-20+ years old. I'd be happy to furnish a list if such a thing is necessary, but as it is your statement seems absurd on the face of it.
  - nkurz 9y ago
    olau: If we're talking about great, innovative artists, I think few of them actually benefit much from the copyright system maldusiecle: I can think of countless innovative musicians, film directors, and authors who benefit from selling back catalog that's 10-20+ years old I'd love to see more support for both sides of this argument. My guess would be that olau and maldusiecle may not have much overlap in the list of artists that they consider innovative. I'm probably closer to olau's position: while there are artists who benefit from copyright, they tend to be the ones who have chosen to concentrate on the commercial potential of their work rather than innovation. And I'd guess that most of those who are "doing art for art's sake" would do as well or better under a much less restrictive copyright regime.
Feniks 9y ago
That's a tiny minority. Lets face it: if you haven't made your profit in 5 years you never will and the loss will have been written of.
- maldusiecle 9y ago
  Is your argument seriously that since innovative artists are a small minority, it's necessarily alright to harm them? You don't see any problem with that?
  - csin 9y ago
    Van Gogh never got monetary reimbursement for his art. Are we all suppose to feel terrible for such an injustice? As a budding musician. I am mentally prepare for my art to be a financial failure/setback. It comes with the territory.
  - Feniks 9y ago
    Not very innovative if somebody expects to live the rest of their life on the royalties of one book or movie. And realistically who can do that anyway? In popular culture?

olau 9y ago

To some extent I think you're right. But the problem, just like with patents, is that there a many kinds of actors in our modern world, including large companies who couldn't really care less. A company like Disney would, I think, be more motivated by a 5 or 10 year copyright period, as it would require them to keep on producing and innovating. If we're talking about great, innovative artists, I think few of them actually benefit much from the copyright system anyway.

maldusiecle 9y ago
> If we're talking about great, innovative artists, I think few of them actually benefit much from the copyright system anyway. This is a really stunning claim and one that needs a lot more defense than you're giving it. I can think of countless innovative musicians, film directors, and authors who benefit from selling back catalog that's 10-20+ years old. I'd be happy to furnish a list if such a thing is necessary, but as it is your statement seems absurd on the face of it.
- nkurz 9y ago
  olau: If we're talking about great, innovative artists, I think few of them actually benefit much from the copyright system maldusiecle: I can think of countless innovative musicians, film directors, and authors who benefit from selling back catalog that's 10-20+ years old I'd love to see more support for both sides of this argument. My guess would be that olau and maldusiecle may not have much overlap in the list of artists that they consider innovative. I'm probably closer to olau's position: while there are artists who benefit from copyright, they tend to be the ones who have chosen to concentrate on the commercial potential of their work rather than innovation. And I'd guess that most of those who are "doing art for art's sake" would do as well or better under a much less restrictive copyright regime.

Feniks 9y ago

That's a tiny minority. Lets face it: if you haven't made your profit in 5 years you never will and the loss will have been written of.

maldusiecle 9y ago
Is your argument seriously that since innovative artists are a small minority, it's necessarily alright to harm them? You don't see any problem with that?
- csin 9y ago
  Van Gogh never got monetary reimbursement for his art. Are we all suppose to feel terrible for such an injustice? As a budding musician. I am mentally prepare for my art to be a financial failure/setback. It comes with the territory.
- Feniks 9y ago
  Not very innovative if somebody expects to live the rest of their life on the royalties of one book or movie. And realistically who can do that anyway? In popular culture?