3 ms·

"To the Swiss government, the people of the country (or, the impact to the people of the country) are/is considered before an external interest." How would you

"To the Swiss government, the people of the country (or, the impact to the people of the country) are/is considered before an external interest." How would you consider the American music industry an "external interest" in the USA? While the RIAA and the labels aren't citizens, they're generally comprised of citizens. That is, when a music label gets special treatment, that means those citizens who work for that label get special treatment. I'm not advocating the craziness that is current copyright law in the USA by any means, and while the above statement might sound like justification for all the evil the RIAA and the like have done over the years, the issue is hardly black-and-white. "Artists will continue making movies and music because that's what artists do – with or without the entertainment industry." I think this is a very broad, gross generalization. Sure, musically-inclined folks will probably still continue to play instruments or write songs as a hobby, even if there weren't a financial incentive -- but I hardly think the thousands (hundreds of thousands? millions?) of people currently involved in the entertainment industry would all be starving artists/producers/technicians/special effects artists/movie theater operators/etc. purely out of some all-overriding drive to create/produce/engineer/operate. Let's say we flipped the law and made it illegal to sell music & movies. On the plus side, we'd probably have relatively little low-quality "pop" music & remakes of remakes in the theaters. On the negatives, we'd almost certainly never have, say, the Beatles White album, 2001: A Space Odyssey, WALL-E, etc.. It's not because without a financial incentive the Beatles wouldn't have made music, they just wouldn't have been able to devote the time and resources that they did. Kubrick might have still made a film like 2001, but how possible is it he would have been able to make it of the same quality? Again, I'm not saying I agree with our current system of basically entertainment industry-by-fiat, but it's not nearly as simple as "we'll always have art regardless of if there's an industry to support it!"

guard-of-terra 15y ago
American/british music is an "external interest" for most of european countries (music is net import). Still they combat piracy as if they are gaining money on IP, not bleeding. While USA is known for pirating like crazy and defending it at law level until they became net exporter in the first half of XX century. Then they started evolving towards IP protection, while ensuring they would not have to pay for older works but they would be paid for newer works.
tomlin 15y ago
> How would you consider the American music industry an "external interest" in the USA? The American music industry isn't American. It's international. When a corporation gets to be the size of, say, Universal, their interests are not bound to a specific country. To me, that makes their interests external to America's interests. > I think this is a very broad, gross generalization. Sure, musically-inclined folks will probably still continue to play instruments or write songs as a hobby, even if there weren't a financial incentive. It is a broad generalization to say that artists are fuelled by financial gain. I love designing and developing digital products and if I didn't work 9-5, I'd be doing it more often and probably with less restrictions, less overhead and less BS. We can't fathom this because it doesn't exist. The method provided is thought to be the only true way to "make it". And that's wrong. > Let's say we flipped the law and made it illegal to sell music & movies. You don't need to flip it. All you have to do is align with your peers and create communities that encourage artistic expression. Nothing wrong with people being the distribution network. There are thousands of years of cultural evidence that distribution of art & ideas is abundant when necessary. > but it's not nearly as simple as "we'll always have art regardless of if there's an industry to support it!" And yet art existed before the entertainment industry. Really, if Switzerland/Sweden's laws are such a threat to their profits, why haven't they pulled out?

guard-of-terra 15y ago

American/british music is an "external interest" for most of european countries (music is net import). Still they combat piracy as if they are gaining money on IP, not bleeding. While USA is known for pirating like crazy and defending it at law level until they became net exporter in the first half of XX century. Then they started evolving towards IP protection, while ensuring they would not have to pay for older works but they would be paid for newer works.

tomlin 15y ago

> How would you consider the American music industry an "external interest" in the USA? The American music industry isn't American. It's international. When a corporation gets to be the size of, say, Universal, their interests are not bound to a specific country. To me, that makes their interests external to America's interests. > I think this is a very broad, gross generalization. Sure, musically-inclined folks will probably still continue to play instruments or write songs as a hobby, even if there weren't a financial incentive. It is a broad generalization to say that artists are fuelled by financial gain. I love designing and developing digital products and if I didn't work 9-5, I'd be doing it more often and probably with less restrictions, less overhead and less BS. We can't fathom this because it doesn't exist. The method provided is thought to be the only true way to "make it". And that's wrong. > Let's say we flipped the law and made it illegal to sell music & movies. You don't need to flip it. All you have to do is align with your peers and create communities that encourage artistic expression. Nothing wrong with people being the distribution network. There are thousands of years of cultural evidence that distribution of art & ideas is abundant when necessary. > but it's not nearly as simple as "we'll always have art regardless of if there's an industry to support it!" And yet art existed before the entertainment industry. Really, if Switzerland/Sweden's laws are such a threat to their profits, why haven't they pulled out?