3 ms·

It is true that artistic expression predates copyright. But isn't it the case that, before copyright, full-time artists either had wealthy patrons (Roman Cathol

by tszyn 15y ago

It is true that artistic expression predates copyright. But isn't it the case that, before copyright, full-time artists either had wealthy patrons (Roman Catholic Church, the nobility) or lived in poverty? Copyright made it possible for an artist to make a living without having a wealthy patron. I don't think we want to go back to a world where artists are funded by rich people because in that world, the rich decide what works get created. Copyright is the only proven way of producing an abundance of art CREATED FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC, not for the Church or some nobleman. Just look at how many books and songs we got in the 20. century. Thousands of consumers each paying a small amount is a fundamentally democratic idea. I think it should be possible for a writer, musician or developer to make money from ACTUAL creative work -- not from concerts, book signings or t-shirts. I don't see why so many people seem to wish for a world in which a hairdresser gets paid for his work, but a composer or software developer gets nothing. Do we really want a system which rewards the creation of tangible products like tables and haircuts, but not the creation of ideas? In the 21. century? Seriously? To those who ask "why create artificial scarcity?": For the same reason we have environmental regulations. Environmental regulations also create artificial scarcity. We make it artificially expensive to release CO2 into the air or to fish cod out of the sea above a certain limit. Why? Because this is necessary to ensure continued abundance. Unless someone proposes a better model which enables people to make a living by creating reproducible works, I will remain a (critical) supporter of copyright. In general, I think we should strive to create a system which rewards contributions to our society.

joebadmo 15y ago
"before copyright, full-time artists either had wealthy patrons (Roman Catholic Church, the nobility) or lived in poverty? Copyright made it possible for an artist to make a living without having a wealthy patron." Even if the former is true, I don't think the latter is. "I don't think we want to go back to a world where artists are funded by rich people because in that world, the rich decide what works get created." How is this not the situation now? Musicians and filmmakers work at the pleasure of large corporations, who have neither the general enrichment of the culture nor the livelihood of the artist as a priority. "I think it should be possible for a writer, musician or developer to make money from ACTUAL creative work..." That's not really the way capitalism works, though. They don't have a natural right to be compensated for the work they want to do. If they did, I'd sit at home and write essays on my blog for 40 hrs/wk instead of going to my government job. Artists have to figure out how to get paid just like the rest of us. Copyright isn't working. See Amanda Palmer for a model that's an alternative both to being owned by a corporation and to starving. It involves a lot of direct relationship with audience. (You'd think HN of all communities would get this.) Environmental regulations are not really artificial scarcity, though. It's more like trying to internalize tragedy of the commons externalities. I think of it like an insurance policy, where you charge people who are having a negative effect that won't be felt until later, so you can pay to deal with it when the time comes.
- tszyn 15y ago
  Your reply conflates two things: copyright and big labels. The control of artistic expression landed in the hands of big corporations because only big corporations could handle three expensive things: 1) production, 2) distribution and 3) promotion. All three of these things have recently become way cheaper thanks to digital tech. Big labels are becoming less powerful every minute. It is now perfectly possible for an unsigned band to produce their own recordings in a home studio, sell them on the Web and promote them on the Web as well. If copyright is abolished, this will no longer be possible because the band will no longer have any right to profit from the use of their songs. Even if a million people love their song and listen to it every day, they get zilch. In short, I see the big label problem, but the problem was never copyright. The problem was expensive production/distribution/promotion. "They don't have a natural right to be compensated for the work they want to do." Copyright does not give people the right to get compensated for what they want to do. It compensates people if they make something that other people want to use. I don't want to talk about "natural rights". I find the notion fuzzy and suspect. I think it only complicates the issue at hand. I would like to live in a world where people get rewarded when they contribute to society. (Someone who writes a song or book or software program that a lot of people like is a contributor to society.) Either you find that vision desirable or not.
  - joebadmo 15y ago
    If I conflate the two, it's because big labels are generally the only ones with enough resources to enforce their copyrights. "Copyright does not give people the right to get compensated for what they want to do. It compensates people if they make something that other people want to use." Fair point. But the economic argument I'm making is that copies of music, for example, is a commodity at this point, because of the ~0 marginal cost and more or less substitutable. My point is that I believe that artists will figure out how to get compensated for the contributions to society. Charging for copies isn't going to be part of it.
muuh-gnu 15y ago
> I don't think we want to Who is "we" and when did those "we" give you the right to make claims in our name? Neither you nor anybody else can decide what "we" want. Only we can decide what we want. Let stop making assumptions and simply have a vote on copyright policy.
slowpoke 15y ago
>Copyright made it possible for an artist to make a living without having a wealthy patron. Excuse me, but that is bullshit. You seem to have exactly zero clue about the origins of copyright. Since I've explained this countless times here already, let me just quote myself from an older comment of mine: The fact is, copyright was never meant for creators. It was invented by distributors for distributors. The first copyright law was a censorship law to limit the amount of books printed when the printing press was was getting widely available in England that gave a total monopoly on publishing to a guild of publishers, without even attributing a book to the original author, but instead to the guild member who registered the book, attaining its newly invented "copyright". So no, copyright was never meant to "make it possible for an artists to make a living". >Copyright is the only proven way of producing an abundance of art CREATED FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Proven? Your throwing around fallacies here. There's nothing proven about this, it's quite the opposite already. Unlimited sharing has enabled the creation of more art than ever before. >I think it should be possible for a writer, musician or developer to make money from ACTUAL creative work If he or she can find a way to make money from it, sure why not. The point is, you cannot make that money with distribution anymore. That's a reality and there's nothing you can do about it. >Do we really want a system which rewards the creation of tangible products like tables and haircuts, but not the creation of ideas? In the 21. century? Seriously? Again your throwing completely unrelated things together. - A table is indeed a tangible good. You make one, then you can sell it, and have to make another. - A haircut is not a tangible good, it's a service. The hairdresser gets paid for the work he/she has done. - The creation of art isn't a tangible good either. It's best likened to a service, except many people do it proactively instead of waiting for someone to pay them to create art. Yes, we as a society should find ways to reward the creation of art. Copyright is not, and never was, the solution. >Environmental regulations also create artificial scarcity. Except there already is scarcity in nature. If there would be an infinite amount of fish, it would make no sense to regulate catching. Huge abundance != no scarcity. With reproducible art, there is truly no scarcity.
- tszyn 15y ago
  You made a logical mistake of confusing these two statements: 1. "Copyright made it possible for an artist to make a living without having a wealthy patron" 2. "Copyright WAS MEANT to make it possible for an artists to make a living without having a wealthy patron" You seem to think that by disproving (2) you also disprove (1), which is false. (1) is true. (2) may well be false, it doesn't matter. Your comments about a haircut being a service, not a product, have no bearing on my point that we are approaching a situation in which a hairdresser is rewarded by society for his work, but a songwriter is not. I'm sorry, but pointing out mistakes like this (and if you'd applied the principle of charity you would've seen that it is not quite a mistake) only distracts from the actual discussion. I'm glad you agree we should find ways to reward the creation of art. I am open to possibilities other than copyright. But so far all I've seen is a lot of handwaving and no workable model.

by tszyn 15y ago

joebadmo 15y ago

"before copyright, full-time artists either had wealthy patrons (Roman Catholic Church, the nobility) or lived in poverty? Copyright made it possible for an artist to make a living without having a wealthy patron." Even if the former is true, I don't think the latter is. "I don't think we want to go back to a world where artists are funded by rich people because in that world, the rich decide what works get created." How is this not the situation now? Musicians and filmmakers work at the pleasure of large corporations, who have neither the general enrichment of the culture nor the livelihood of the artist as a priority. "I think it should be possible for a writer, musician or developer to make money from ACTUAL creative work..." That's not really the way capitalism works, though. They don't have a natural right to be compensated for the work they want to do. If they did, I'd sit at home and write essays on my blog for 40 hrs/wk instead of going to my government job. Artists have to figure out how to get paid just like the rest of us. Copyright isn't working. See Amanda Palmer for a model that's an alternative both to being owned by a corporation and to starving. It involves a lot of direct relationship with audience. (You'd think HN of all communities would get this.) Environmental regulations are not really artificial scarcity, though. It's more like trying to internalize tragedy of the commons externalities. I think of it like an insurance policy, where you charge people who are having a negative effect that won't be felt until later, so you can pay to deal with it when the time comes.

tszyn 15y ago
Your reply conflates two things: copyright and big labels. The control of artistic expression landed in the hands of big corporations because only big corporations could handle three expensive things: 1) production, 2) distribution and 3) promotion. All three of these things have recently become way cheaper thanks to digital tech. Big labels are becoming less powerful every minute. It is now perfectly possible for an unsigned band to produce their own recordings in a home studio, sell them on the Web and promote them on the Web as well. If copyright is abolished, this will no longer be possible because the band will no longer have any right to profit from the use of their songs. Even if a million people love their song and listen to it every day, they get zilch. In short, I see the big label problem, but the problem was never copyright. The problem was expensive production/distribution/promotion. "They don't have a natural right to be compensated for the work they want to do." Copyright does not give people the right to get compensated for what they want to do. It compensates people if they make something that other people want to use. I don't want to talk about "natural rights". I find the notion fuzzy and suspect. I think it only complicates the issue at hand. I would like to live in a world where people get rewarded when they contribute to society. (Someone who writes a song or book or software program that a lot of people like is a contributor to society.) Either you find that vision desirable or not.
- joebadmo 15y ago
  If I conflate the two, it's because big labels are generally the only ones with enough resources to enforce their copyrights. "Copyright does not give people the right to get compensated for what they want to do. It compensates people if they make something that other people want to use." Fair point. But the economic argument I'm making is that copies of music, for example, is a commodity at this point, because of the ~0 marginal cost and more or less substitutable. My point is that I believe that artists will figure out how to get compensated for the contributions to society. Charging for copies isn't going to be part of it.

muuh-gnu 15y ago

> I don't think we want to Who is "we" and when did those "we" give you the right to make claims in our name? Neither you nor anybody else can decide what "we" want. Only we can decide what we want. Let stop making assumptions and simply have a vote on copyright policy.

slowpoke 15y ago

>Copyright made it possible for an artist to make a living without having a wealthy patron. Excuse me, but that is bullshit. You seem to have exactly zero clue about the origins of copyright. Since I've explained this countless times here already, let me just quote myself from an older comment of mine: The fact is, copyright was never meant for creators. It was invented by distributors for distributors. The first copyright law was a censorship law to limit the amount of books printed when the printing press was was getting widely available in England that gave a total monopoly on publishing to a guild of publishers, without even attributing a book to the original author, but instead to the guild member who registered the book, attaining its newly invented "copyright". So no, copyright was never meant to "make it possible for an artists to make a living". >Copyright is the only proven way of producing an abundance of art CREATED FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Proven? Your throwing around fallacies here. There's nothing proven about this, it's quite the opposite already. Unlimited sharing has enabled the creation of more art than ever before. >I think it should be possible for a writer, musician or developer to make money from ACTUAL creative work If he or she can find a way to make money from it, sure why not. The point is, you cannot make that money with distribution anymore. That's a reality and there's nothing you can do about it. >Do we really want a system which rewards the creation of tangible products like tables and haircuts, but not the creation of ideas? In the 21. century? Seriously? Again your throwing completely unrelated things together. - A table is indeed a tangible good. You make one, then you can sell it, and have to make another. - A haircut is not a tangible good, it's a service. The hairdresser gets paid for the work he/she has done. - The creation of art isn't a tangible good either. It's best likened to a service, except many people do it proactively instead of waiting for someone to pay them to create art. Yes, we as a society should find ways to reward the creation of art. Copyright is not, and never was, the solution. >Environmental regulations also create artificial scarcity. Except there already is scarcity in nature. If there would be an infinite amount of fish, it would make no sense to regulate catching. Huge abundance != no scarcity. With reproducible art, there is truly no scarcity.

tszyn 15y ago
You made a logical mistake of confusing these two statements: 1. "Copyright made it possible for an artist to make a living without having a wealthy patron" 2. "Copyright WAS MEANT to make it possible for an artists to make a living without having a wealthy patron" You seem to think that by disproving (2) you also disprove (1), which is false. (1) is true. (2) may well be false, it doesn't matter. Your comments about a haircut being a service, not a product, have no bearing on my point that we are approaching a situation in which a hairdresser is rewarded by society for his work, but a songwriter is not. I'm sorry, but pointing out mistakes like this (and if you'd applied the principle of charity you would've seen that it is not quite a mistake) only distracts from the actual discussion. I'm glad you agree we should find ways to reward the creation of art. I am open to possibilities other than copyright. But so far all I've seen is a lot of handwaving and no workable model.