3 ms·

This is a pretty common argument in fact, that places which lack copyright protections often have as much or more art. It's a very competitive endeavor no matte

This is a pretty common argument in fact, that places which lack copyright protections often have as much or more art. It's a very competitive endeavor no matter how low the stakes get. Also the new business models adopted by those adapting to a lack of copyright may well involve more creative production. For example holding concerts instead of just selling reproductions.

tptacek 5y ago
This argument would be more persuasive with examples. Also: touring music is notoriously non-remunerative; people think about U2's fleet of luxury busses, but the majority of acts, even ones that lots of people have heard of, barely cover gas money and the returns they'd get as the manager of a convenience store from touring --- which is work that is tremendously disruptive to actually building a life, which is why we pay long haul truck drivers so much money to do it. I get a lot more value from recorded music than I do from live music; the idea that we should make it essentially impossible to make a living from music you only play in a studio doesn't sit well, since I like a lot of that music too. My bigger problem here is a moral one, though. It's simple: a musician takes the time to compose and record a piece of music. I had nothing whatsoever to do with that work. What right do I have to set the terms that musician can use for their work? It's their work, not mine. If they want to charge $5,000 for a copy, that's their right; I can just listen to something else. If musicians writ large want to maximize the number of copies that are made of their work, they can do what Radiohead does and release on "pay what you want" terms. That almost nobody does this in practice is telling.
- simplestats 5y ago
  The internet itself is one commonly-used example of a "wild west" without protection and with prolific art nonetheless. The incentive to continue wasting your life doing unprofitable concerts is not removed in a world where you can only profit via concerts. It simply changes to hoping for a future of profitable concerts, rather than hoping for a future of profitable record sales. And while you may cling to one system becasue you like certain facets of it which might change, you also don't know what you are missing in a system without copyright. Policies always have a hidden cost.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Are the most enduring and popular works of fiction, of film, or of music produced primarily on the Internet, or are they released commercially with IPR protections? I don't doubt the Internet's ability to produce cartoons and memes, but I wouldn't trade all of them together for Blood Meridian or Nevermind.

tptacek 5y ago

This argument would be more persuasive with examples. Also: touring music is notoriously non-remunerative; people think about U2's fleet of luxury busses, but the majority of acts, even ones that lots of people have heard of, barely cover gas money and the returns they'd get as the manager of a convenience store from touring --- which is work that is tremendously disruptive to actually building a life, which is why we pay long haul truck drivers so much money to do it. I get a lot more value from recorded music than I do from live music; the idea that we should make it essentially impossible to make a living from music you only play in a studio doesn't sit well, since I like a lot of that music too. My bigger problem here is a moral one, though. It's simple: a musician takes the time to compose and record a piece of music. I had nothing whatsoever to do with that work. What right do I have to set the terms that musician can use for their work? It's their work, not mine. If they want to charge $5,000 for a copy, that's their right; I can just listen to something else. If musicians writ large want to maximize the number of copies that are made of their work, they can do what Radiohead does and release on "pay what you want" terms. That almost nobody does this in practice is telling.

simplestats 5y ago
The internet itself is one commonly-used example of a "wild west" without protection and with prolific art nonetheless. The incentive to continue wasting your life doing unprofitable concerts is not removed in a world where you can only profit via concerts. It simply changes to hoping for a future of profitable concerts, rather than hoping for a future of profitable record sales. And while you may cling to one system becasue you like certain facets of it which might change, you also don't know what you are missing in a system without copyright. Policies always have a hidden cost.
- tptacek 5y ago
  Are the most enduring and popular works of fiction, of film, or of music produced primarily on the Internet, or are they released commercially with IPR protections? I don't doubt the Internet's ability to produce cartoons and memes, but I wouldn't trade all of them together for Blood Meridian or Nevermind.