4 ms·
I met him once. He used the urinal beside mine, despite there being three available and myself not being in the centre. He was wearing socks, no shoes or sandal
by dleslie 4y ago
I met him once. He used the urinal beside mine, despite there being three available and myself not being in the centre. He was wearing socks, no shoes or sandals, in the public bathroom.
Later we argued over whether digital artistic content should be made freely available, and he took the side of unequivocal defense of a user's right to resell, regardless of there being any derivative effort, and with no obligation to compensate the creator. He had no clear concept of how to compensate the original artist aside from an initial work for hire model.
In his desired reality, wealthy persons would provide patronage to artists and artists would have no other source of income, because redistribution would be free. It's positively medieval.
- ekianjo 4y ago> In his to desired reality, wealthy persons would provide patronage to artists and artists would have no other source of income. It's positively medieval. Do you prefer copyright where someone can make one thing in their 20s and live until the end of their lives doing nothing else but reaping the money from what they did once? Or dead authors still being paid for their creations? Its positively nonsensical.
- dleslie 4y agoI prefer copyright in its original intent, that struck a fair balance between public good and creator need. RMS simply did not care, explicitly so, about compensating creators and supporting their efforts. Vigorously, clearly, did not care.
- CyberDildonics 4y agoWhy is that nonsensical?
- ekianjo 4y agoBecause dead authors can't write new books.
- CyberDildonics 4y agoDead authors don't get money for new books. If people are buying the books, who gets the money? Assets have value dictated by their money generation over time. Assets can also be owned by companies. Should the a book owned by a company suddenly be out of copywrite because the author dies? Should a movie made by hundreds of people be free at some point when the writer or director dies? Should a house be open to the public after the owner dies? Should it go to some government? There isn't any sort of consistent logic here. Once you think about assets, companies, multiple people working on something etc, it will never make sense to think someone dying means all their work should be free unless they own it and make it free in their will.
- lawtalkinghuman 4y agoHouses are rivalrous goods. The whole reason IP is treated differently is that it's non-rivalrous. One theatrical company doing a production of Macbeth does not stop another. One orchestra performing a Mozart concert does not stop another. There isn't a consistent logic between rivalrous real and personal property and non-rivalrous intellectual property precisely because they're different things. The right to legally enforcable exclusivity in intellectual property regimes like copyright or patents stems from a balancing exercise between incentivising the work being done (i.e. authors writing books, filmmakers producing films, drug companies researching cool life-saving medical innovations etc.) and ensuring that at some point it reaches the public domain (plus a bit of practicality).
- dleslie 4y ago> One theatrical company doing a production of Macbeth does not stop another. Human leisure, desire and opportunity to consume artistic works is a fair of the population size, and is not unlimited. That's why you don't see a unique and profitable theatre company present on YouTube for every individual of the population.
- CyberDildonics 4y agoYou can say 'rivalrous' as many times as you want, but none of this explains why an IP asset should suddenly be public domain when someone dies. You didn't answer any of the questions about various scenarios like company ownership or lots of people being involved in something's creation. Also there are already time limits for things to be in the public domain and medicine patents expire and become public domain, so I'm not sure what your point is.
- pessimizer 4y agoI think that you are very fairly communicating his position, which leaves me grossed out that you're probably fairly communicating the preamble. I agree with him. It doesn't bother me if that wipes out entire categories of art. I guarantee that the world will remain filled with art, even if I have to make it all myself.
- dleslie 4y agoThere will always be art, but we have a way of compensating artists that allows them to create art for a living. He proposed no alternative that would allow this.
- pessimizer 4y agoAnd I also propose no alternative that would allow this, other than the support of people who have a desire to support artists.
- dleslie 4y agoBecause pan handling for patronage scales so well. It's no coincidence that the explosion in creative works and professional artists occurred after the advent of copyright.