5 ms·

This one is great as well: "I sometimes hear the old guard say that there would be no culture if there was no copyright monopoly. That is an outrageous insult

by Zirro 15y ago

This one is great as well: "I sometimes hear the old guard say that there would be no culture if there was no copyright monopoly. That is an outrageous insult to creators all over the world today." When someone makes that claim, they ignore the thousands upon thousands of pieces of original music, film and pictures that artists, normal people, make available for free to everyone on the Internet every day.

slowpoke 15y ago
Exactly. Also, I always like to ask people making that claim how they explain the apparently miraculous existence of art before 1557 (or 1710, depending on whether you consider the Stationer's Charter or the Statute of Anne to be the first real instance of copyright law).
- tzs 15y ago
  Wasn't art then mostly paid for by the Church, the government, or wealthy patrons?
  - viking 15y ago
    There are many types of art that was created in large quantities for fun or sale to the common man like beautifully painted furniture, tree carving, jewelry, painted rooms and paintings etc. I think it's a false dichotomy to classify art based on who funded it.
- polshaw 15y ago
  I totally agree the copyright system is unhelpful to society, but i think it's fair to say that copying wasn't exactly practical in the 1500's. Personally I broadly approve of the 5 year term proposed by the pirate party.. it would still allow business to invest and get a return, but also allow information to be freely and openly shared with society within a reasonable time frame.
erichocean 15y ago
It's true that creators won't stop creating. What's not true is that we'll continue to get the exact same kinds of things created. (Some of you may think that's a good thing.) Take a feature film, for example. A film costs around $100 million to make, and $20 million to market. Without copyright, that film can be easily copied by Illegitimate Theater Chain and then shown without paying the creator. Does anyone here think that $100 million films will continue to be made and marketed under such a system? I don't. Maybe, as a society, we shouldn't care about $100 million dollar feature films and maybe no one will be upset that they're no longer made in exchange for having no copyright laws. One thing is clear though: copyright is the legal mechanism that allows $100 million feature films to be made today, and without it, they won't be.
- joenathan 15y ago
  One of the reasons certain things 'cost' so much to make is because when they are made they are worth so much. Without copyright these thing surely wouldn't make as much money as they now do, so to take your example of a movie, actors would therefore not be paid as much and so on down the line. So I think the question is should so much money be made from some of these things? Should for example actors and sports players be insanely rich while teachers and other public servants make so little?
  - dissident 15y ago
    Also relevant is the increased availability of professional software for film/music production, and advanced technologies for producing creative content which are emerging. How much is a Hollywood movie really going to cost to produce in five years? (Ignoring inflated writing/acting expenses.)
    - joenathan 15y ago
      Great points. The more I think about it, America would look very different if there was no copyright. There wouldn't be the huge companies that we have today. For example Disney has the sole rights to produce Mickey Mouse based products, but if anyone anywhere could produce Mickey Mouse based products, then suddenly a hole lot less money is streaming into Disney, and just take that effect and multiply it out=no more mega corps. It would change the face of commerce and to that effect even employment, you'd probably have many more small businesses and a lot less "corporations". In any case it would have very far reaching effects...
billpatrianakos 15y ago
There definitely is a lot of creating going on but how much of it is really worthwhile? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I can make a turkey by tracing my hand. Do you really want to see it though? A hundred or so years ago we had Picasso. Now we have LOLCats. I doubt people in the future will hold up our blogs, status updates, and pictures with funny captions as examples of the great achievements from the past. More art isn't necessarily a good thing. Turning up the noise in the signal to noise ratio never helps anyone. It's a fine line we're walking here. I don't want to defend the copyright lobby but I'm not ready to say all this new "art" is good for culture either.
- Zirro 15y ago
  Saying that everything the common man is able to create today is "LOLCats" is just as bad as the "culture will die if we remove copyright"-argument. Good things, works of art, survive. Those LOLCats will still be there in the future, sure, and some people may even appreciate them. But for those who don't, filtering out the "simple" stuff shouldn't be an issue. The music I've been listening to all day has been produced by people who love what they're doing. They don't want your money. For them, it's enough that you take time and listen to their music. That's why they distribute it for free. And I can tell you that out of the things created by teenagers today, there are things I will appreciate just as much, or even more, in 50 years. That's more than enough to make them art to me.
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    You mention money. Why is it important that it's free? Is there something wrong with trying to be paid for your work? I don't totally agree that artists should be thought of in the same way entrepreneurs are. Saying that the person who wrote a song shouldn't be able to stop people from sharing it is like saying Samsung should be able to install iOS on a tablet and apple should find a different way to monetize their platform. And as for culture, well culture is created by all of us. You or I or the next guy may have good taste but that doesn't mean the majority do. So when this ridiculous amount of creation goes on that means there will be far more crap than gems and with so much crap to wade through eventually it'll be lost and Lolcats will be considered culture and it'll be a sad day for culture. I'd like to believe that good things survive, I really do but that seems too optimistic to me. The music you've discovered wont be considered part of the culture of the future. Lady Gaga will. That's just what happens when there's so much to choose from.

by Zirro 15y ago

slowpoke 15y ago

Exactly. Also, I always like to ask people making that claim how they explain the apparently miraculous existence of art before 1557 (or 1710, depending on whether you consider the Stationer's Charter or the Statute of Anne to be the first real instance of copyright law).

tzs 15y ago
Wasn't art then mostly paid for by the Church, the government, or wealthy patrons?
- viking 15y ago
  There are many types of art that was created in large quantities for fun or sale to the common man like beautifully painted furniture, tree carving, jewelry, painted rooms and paintings etc. I think it's a false dichotomy to classify art based on who funded it.
polshaw 15y ago
I totally agree the copyright system is unhelpful to society, but i think it's fair to say that copying wasn't exactly practical in the 1500's. Personally I broadly approve of the 5 year term proposed by the pirate party.. it would still allow business to invest and get a return, but also allow information to be freely and openly shared with society within a reasonable time frame.

erichocean 15y ago

It's true that creators won't stop creating. What's not true is that we'll continue to get the exact same kinds of things created. (Some of you may think that's a good thing.) Take a feature film, for example. A film costs around $100 million to make, and $20 million to market. Without copyright, that film can be easily copied by Illegitimate Theater Chain and then shown without paying the creator. Does anyone here think that $100 million films will continue to be made and marketed under such a system? I don't. Maybe, as a society, we shouldn't care about $100 million dollar feature films and maybe no one will be upset that they're no longer made in exchange for having no copyright laws. One thing is clear though: copyright is the legal mechanism that allows $100 million feature films to be made today, and without it, they won't be.

joenathan 15y ago
One of the reasons certain things 'cost' so much to make is because when they are made they are worth so much. Without copyright these thing surely wouldn't make as much money as they now do, so to take your example of a movie, actors would therefore not be paid as much and so on down the line. So I think the question is should so much money be made from some of these things? Should for example actors and sports players be insanely rich while teachers and other public servants make so little?
- dissident 15y ago
  Also relevant is the increased availability of professional software for film/music production, and advanced technologies for producing creative content which are emerging. How much is a Hollywood movie really going to cost to produce in five years? (Ignoring inflated writing/acting expenses.)
  - joenathan 15y ago
    Great points. The more I think about it, America would look very different if there was no copyright. There wouldn't be the huge companies that we have today. For example Disney has the sole rights to produce Mickey Mouse based products, but if anyone anywhere could produce Mickey Mouse based products, then suddenly a hole lot less money is streaming into Disney, and just take that effect and multiply it out=no more mega corps. It would change the face of commerce and to that effect even employment, you'd probably have many more small businesses and a lot less "corporations". In any case it would have very far reaching effects...

billpatrianakos 15y ago

There definitely is a lot of creating going on but how much of it is really worthwhile? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I can make a turkey by tracing my hand. Do you really want to see it though? A hundred or so years ago we had Picasso. Now we have LOLCats. I doubt people in the future will hold up our blogs, status updates, and pictures with funny captions as examples of the great achievements from the past. More art isn't necessarily a good thing. Turning up the noise in the signal to noise ratio never helps anyone. It's a fine line we're walking here. I don't want to defend the copyright lobby but I'm not ready to say all this new "art" is good for culture either.

Zirro 15y ago
Saying that everything the common man is able to create today is "LOLCats" is just as bad as the "culture will die if we remove copyright"-argument. Good things, works of art, survive. Those LOLCats will still be there in the future, sure, and some people may even appreciate them. But for those who don't, filtering out the "simple" stuff shouldn't be an issue. The music I've been listening to all day has been produced by people who love what they're doing. They don't want your money. For them, it's enough that you take time and listen to their music. That's why they distribute it for free. And I can tell you that out of the things created by teenagers today, there are things I will appreciate just as much, or even more, in 50 years. That's more than enough to make them art to me.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  You mention money. Why is it important that it's free? Is there something wrong with trying to be paid for your work? I don't totally agree that artists should be thought of in the same way entrepreneurs are. Saying that the person who wrote a song shouldn't be able to stop people from sharing it is like saying Samsung should be able to install iOS on a tablet and apple should find a different way to monetize their platform. And as for culture, well culture is created by all of us. You or I or the next guy may have good taste but that doesn't mean the majority do. So when this ridiculous amount of creation goes on that means there will be far more crap than gems and with so much crap to wade through eventually it'll be lost and Lolcats will be considered culture and it'll be a sad day for culture. I'd like to believe that good things survive, I really do but that seems too optimistic to me. The music you've discovered wont be considered part of the culture of the future. Lady Gaga will. That's just what happens when there's so much to choose from.