4 ms·

> Just abolish copyright. I'm not joking. You are proposing eliminating viral licenses. > There are many ways to earn money from films, music, art, books, etc

> Just abolish copyright. I'm not joking. You are proposing eliminating viral licenses. > There are many ways to earn money from films, music, art, books, etc., without needing copyright. This an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I think you don't have it. I suspect that, realistically, the only way to earn money from "films, music, art, books, etc.," without copyright is a patronage system. That's far from good.

WalterBright 4y ago
> This an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I think you don't have it. I don't? Germany in the 1800s did not have copyright protection, and it was boom time for them. Musicians make tons of money from live performances. CDs serve as advertisements for their live concerts. Wealthy people love to buy original paintings for $$$$ when the images of them are free all over the intertoobs. Academics don't make much of anything from books. The books serve to boost their professional reputations, which they turn into money. Celebrity authors make money by being celebrities. The free software industry is thriving. Patronage is not a bad system. I don't know why you think it is. Just look at all the incredible medieval art resulting from it.
- SeanLuke 4y ago
  > Germany in the 1800s did not have copyright protection, and it was boom time for them Because England's book publishers had a cartel. Eckhard Höffner's argument is absurd on the face of it (he basically says: England had copyright, Germany did not, Germany published more books, therefore not having a copyright causes you to publish more books). He also didn't bother to look to other places, like the US. > Musicians make tons of money from live performances A vanishingly small number of musicians make tons of money from live performances. Music is probably the defining example of the need for copyright. > Patronage is not a bad system. I don't know why you think it is. Just look at all the incredible medieval art resulting from it. Yes, check out all that medieval art of things unintersting to wealthy people and the Church. Patronage was, and is, a horrible system. It is art feudalism and serfdom. You're basically arguing that Elon Musk gets to determine what art is made. > The free software industry is thriving. I'm sure Canonical is raking in the money compared to Microsoft. But let's get back to the item you ignored: by eliminating copyright, you are effectively destroying viral licenses and the free software movement that goes with them.

WalterBright 4y ago

> This an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I think you don't have it. I don't? Germany in the 1800s did not have copyright protection, and it was boom time for them. Musicians make tons of money from live performances. CDs serve as advertisements for their live concerts. Wealthy people love to buy original paintings for $$$$ when the images of them are free all over the intertoobs. Academics don't make much of anything from books. The books serve to boost their professional reputations, which they turn into money. Celebrity authors make money by being celebrities. The free software industry is thriving. Patronage is not a bad system. I don't know why you think it is. Just look at all the incredible medieval art resulting from it.

SeanLuke 4y ago
> Germany in the 1800s did not have copyright protection, and it was boom time for them Because England's book publishers had a cartel. Eckhard Höffner's argument is absurd on the face of it (he basically says: England had copyright, Germany did not, Germany published more books, therefore not having a copyright causes you to publish more books). He also didn't bother to look to other places, like the US. > Musicians make tons of money from live performances A vanishingly small number of musicians make tons of money from live performances. Music is probably the defining example of the need for copyright. > Patronage is not a bad system. I don't know why you think it is. Just look at all the incredible medieval art resulting from it. Yes, check out all that medieval art of things unintersting to wealthy people and the Church. Patronage was, and is, a horrible system. It is art feudalism and serfdom. You're basically arguing that Elon Musk gets to determine what art is made. > The free software industry is thriving. I'm sure Canonical is raking in the money compared to Microsoft. But let's get back to the item you ignored: by eliminating copyright, you are effectively destroying viral licenses and the free software movement that goes with them.