6 ms·

Wild claim needs some proof. Works were created for looooooong time before any sort copyrights existed. The problem is having too many works, too many shitty

Wild claim needs some proof. Works were created for looooooong time before any sort copyrights existed. The problem is having too many works, too many shitty works that only exist cause there's an artificial profit motive to create them. Have a look at major music and movies and books. I'd rather have 1 good movie a year than 100's of shit we get now. Things will always get created. Probably not with any mass-market appeal or Block Buster level of attendance. Sounds awesome. I'm totally behind it. "Information Economy" is artificial construct US is trying to push cause we no longer can compete in the Reality Economy. We will probably succeed in pushing it. But, it's just setting us up for even more epic collapse later.

tzs 15y ago
Please try reading more carefully. I did not say that nothing would get created without copyright. I said that some things might not created. And in your third paragraph, you state the same thing.
- Natsu 15y ago
  Most of the disagreement is because people disagree on the magnitude of the harm. That is, they disagree with the "many" part of your argument. FWIW, I upvoted you. I'd rather promote discussion than drive it off just because someone has an unpopular opinion. But anyone advocating an unpopular idea has to be a bit more careful in backing up their arguments for obvious reasons.
michaelchisari 15y ago
Exactly. Don't creative people always push the idea that creative people have to create? That it's a matter of what stops us, not what is required for us to do it. Plenty of artists, many of which spend years honing their craft, not only don't require copyright, but operate in environments which actively work against any kind of ownership (graffiti artists, for example).
- swombat 15y ago
  To be fair, a great many works of art were created by artists who were commissioned to make them for money. Dostoievsky wrote The Idiot to pay some gambling debt. Da Vinci and Michelangelo and the other Masters of that age did all their work for wealthy patrons. The reason why Victorian novels are so long is partly to do with the fact that authors were paid by the page. An argument can be made that at least some great works of art would not have existed were it not for the profit motive. Would someone like Mark Twain still have written books if he could not have made a penny out of it? Probably yes, but probably not as many.
  - michaelchisari 15y ago
    a great many works of art were created by artists who were commissioned to make them for money. Isn't that exactly what people are suggesting as an alternative to copyright? This isn't an argument against receiving money for your craft (I would argue that "profit motive" is inaccurate), but an argument against a legal construct which allows you to continually benefit in perpetuity via artificial constraints. Would someone like Mark Twain still have written books if he could not have made a penny out of it? Didn't Mark Twain marry into wealth specifically so he could write without any monetary worries?

tzs 15y ago

Please try reading more carefully. I did not say that nothing would get created without copyright. I said that some things might not created. And in your third paragraph, you state the same thing.

Natsu 15y ago
Most of the disagreement is because people disagree on the magnitude of the harm. That is, they disagree with the "many" part of your argument. FWIW, I upvoted you. I'd rather promote discussion than drive it off just because someone has an unpopular opinion. But anyone advocating an unpopular idea has to be a bit more careful in backing up their arguments for obvious reasons.

michaelchisari 15y ago

Exactly. Don't creative people always push the idea that creative people have to create? That it's a matter of what stops us, not what is required for us to do it. Plenty of artists, many of which spend years honing their craft, not only don't require copyright, but operate in environments which actively work against any kind of ownership (graffiti artists, for example).

swombat 15y ago
To be fair, a great many works of art were created by artists who were commissioned to make them for money. Dostoievsky wrote The Idiot to pay some gambling debt. Da Vinci and Michelangelo and the other Masters of that age did all their work for wealthy patrons. The reason why Victorian novels are so long is partly to do with the fact that authors were paid by the page. An argument can be made that at least some great works of art would not have existed were it not for the profit motive. Would someone like Mark Twain still have written books if he could not have made a penny out of it? Probably yes, but probably not as many.
- michaelchisari 15y ago
  a great many works of art were created by artists who were commissioned to make them for money. Isn't that exactly what people are suggesting as an alternative to copyright? This isn't an argument against receiving money for your craft (I would argue that "profit motive" is inaccurate), but an argument against a legal construct which allows you to continually benefit in perpetuity via artificial constraints. Would someone like Mark Twain still have written books if he could not have made a penny out of it? Didn't Mark Twain marry into wealth specifically so he could write without any monetary worries?