3 ms·

"before copyright, full-time artists either had wealthy patrons (Roman Catholic Church, the nobility) or lived in poverty? Copyright made it possible for an art

"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.

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.