3 ms·

> so there is nothing obvious in that deduction. For cinema for instance a loooot of the money that serves into making movies come directly from taxpayer mon

• Galanwe 6y ago
  > For cinema for instance a loooot of the money that serves into making movies come directly from taxpayer money I don't quite get your point either. Are you implying you would like ownership to be transfered from your tax money to whatever is created afterward with that money? Would you feel entitled to ask for reports of how your neighbor spends his unemployment grant, because that's partly paid with your tax money?
  • jcelerier 6y ago
    > Are you implying you would like ownership to be transfered from your tax money to whatever is created afterward with that money? I'd rather have no notion of private ownership of ideas, knowledge and cultural goods at all. > Would you feel entitled to ask for reports of how your neighbor spends his unemployment grant, because that's partly paid with your tax money? I don't think it's really meaningful to compare something that allows human beings to (barely) stay alive, to the benefit of for-profit corporations.
    • ravi-delia 6y ago
      Where do you draw the line between artist making money and for-profit corporation? Does a person have the right to limit the distribution of their own work?
• adwn 6y ago
  > there is nothing obvious in that deduction. But it is: The concept of "private property" is pervasive and deeply ingrained in modern Western civilization. You should have very, very good ethical and practical reasons for why this should be changed. Let me try a different angle: If you put a two-minute video of an albatross gliding through the air on Youtube, should viewers of your video also have the right to see the other five hours of your holiday footage?
  • frenchy 6y ago
    You're conflating copyright and privacy. What's being discussed above is really more akin to you "If you post an albatross video on Youtube, should someone else be able to do a remix" or "should someone else be allowed to repost it in their peertube instance".
    • adwn 6y ago
      > You're conflating copyright and privacy. No, this has nothing to do with privacy. The context was "When you buy a DVD, you don't expect hundreds of hours of unedited footage to come along with the film so you can cut together your own version." [1] jcelerier argued that consumers of a movie should have the right to receive all unpublished footage, I argued against that. In my analogy, the "buying a DVD" part is viewing the albatros-video, and the unedited, unpublished footage is the unedited, unpublished footage. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25505851 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25505851
      • these_are_not_t 6y ago
        > should have the right to receive all unpublished footage [of the licensed work] I think it should be read that way. You are not conflating copyright and privacy, you are conflating scopes of content production (the licensed work vs the whole work of the artist). In your example, the topic of the licensed video is the albatross, not the artist holidays. That clarification being made, there's probably some truth in the privacy issue (you brought that example for a reason): one must make a distinction between works of fiction and other works : reporting, biography, and perhaps other kinds. Games are works of fiction, just like movies and music, while someone's holidays isn't. Maybe one may see that as another form of scoping.
• tomcam 6y ago
  I just went off on you on your use of of the term “rights” but when you bring up the government subsidies of movies here in the States—-I agree completely. In fact, as far as I’m concerned any government subsidy at all should render the entire production public domain. I’m not being facetious. Thank you for pointing this stuff out.