4 ms·

> > The point is that this is my decision. > Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person,

> > The point is that this is my decision. > Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do? Because, the creative work would not exist if not for the creator. If you take away the creator's right (and I am not arguing that it should be infinite and indefinite), you take away the incentive to produce and expose creative work. In effect, everyone loses.

ThomPete 15y ago
This is not true. Artist will always make art and always have.
- bira 15y ago
  As long as the artist can afford it. There ain't such thing as free art.
  - ThomPete 15y ago
    There is no such thing as free anything. But there is plenty of great music out there that never made a single dime.
- txxxxd 15y ago
  Yes, of course individuals or small groups will still create art in their free time. You can't deny however that any massive undertakings would be effectively killed. No one will invest millions of dollars to produce a video game, or hundreds of millions to produce a movie if it can be freely copied. It's great that you can make a game or movie on a small budget, but isn't it better to live in a world where we can have both? Does the cost of copyright really outweigh the benefits of living in a society where creative people can devote all of their time producing content?
  - ThomPete 15y ago
    1. Games and movies still makes lots of money 2. Streaming technologies will render the need for physically storing games, movies or anything more and more obsolete. 3. Just wait til the movie houses start using 3d models in stead. You see the problem is that you have to think about this in a much larger perpective to realize that things will even themselves out. With regards to cost of copyright. Then yes when it makes people criminals to the extent it do today and fines them with amounts it do then it is way way way to high.
    - jiggy2011 15y ago
      I'm not sure game streaming would be any better, it may require less copyright but then what happens when the company decides it is no longer economically feasible to stream the game that you like to play? I'm not sure how 3d models would make a difference in movies? Many movies are already basically 3d renders.
      - ThomPete 15y ago
        The same thing that happens when a game gets discontinued today.
        jiggy2011 15y ago
        That's not true at all, I have a large collection of games dating from around 1990 to present on my shelves. Assuming I can find the disks (most of them are in the wrong boxes) I can re-install any of them and play right now (ok I might have to install dosbox for some of them not to mention find a floppy drive). That's only true currently for games that are only playable via a single central online service (e.g WoW etc) and that's sort of dictated by the game format itself. What I mean is a world where all games are video streamed to you even if they are single player only.
        ThomPete 15y ago
        Sorry but you are just being silly now. We are talking about the current and future. You know times change. Anyway. I made my point already.
- SilasX 15y ago
  And (currently-existing) lumberjacks have always cut down trees, and (because of an identity now largely grounded therein) probably always will. Still, I'd rather not have to depend on charity-lumberjacking, you know? If someone wants to chop down trees for free, that's between him and his god (or dryad, as the case may be). If that's the only way trees ever get cut down? God help us all. Above statement refers, for purposes of argument, to sustainable tree harvesting, so as to avoid irrelevant side tangents.
  - ThomPete 15y ago
    Way to go making a comparison that makes no sense at all. A lumberjack can't digitally mass produce cutting down trees. They have to actually be present at each tree.
    - SilasX 15y ago
      Yes, I know that you can identify differences between abolition of copyright and a ban on all monetary compensation for lumberjacks. What you cannot do, however, is find a difference that distinguishes them in a way that defends your argument that we shouldn't worry about a world where X is only produced by charity, since some people do X for free. If you don't care that art would only be produced for free, neither should you care if lumberjacking only happened by charity. If you're not ready to go that far, you might not want to lean so heavily on the argument that "(some) artists create for free".
      - ThomPete 15y ago
        Again who is talking about doing something for free? Don't blame me for you lack of imagination that would have allowed you to see a world where artist could create without making money on digitally mass produced songs. It is possible plenty of people are doing it. So please spare me the strawmen.
        SilasX 15y ago
        >Again who is talking about doing something for free? The guy that cracked your account and used it to make these comments: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3480634 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3480634 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3480674 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3480674 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3480761 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3480761 >Don't blame me for you lack of imagination that would have allowed you to see a world where artist could create without making money on digitally mass produced songs. I'm sure, that, just as with making music, there are revenue models for lumberjacking that don't involve charging for lumberjacking services. For example, they could broadcast live video of themselves chopping down trees and charge for that. Or maybe trees should only be cut down by their owners so they're not technically earning money from chopping down a tree. Or, you know, we could just bypass the whole charade and let people charge for the lumberjacking/artistic creations that they were responsible for (if they so wish) rather than stick to some ideological belief that it's somehow wrong to do so while hoping they come up with some convoluted way to accomplish the same thing with more restricted means. It's great that there are ways to produce good X without invoking exclusivity rights in X; but for those (many) cases where X wouldn't otherwise be produced, I would like for that model to be an option. That doesn't mean the current copyright regime is optimal; far from it. It just means that the mentality of "IP sucks and everyone will produce valuable stuff for free" is looney.
- msutherl 15y ago
  Art – the kind you find in the museum – is entirely enabled by the concept of the "patron". Throughout most of history, patrons have been aristocrats and other wealthy peoples. Without wealthy people to support artists to make art, there will be no art. At the moment we have many people making something equivalent to "folk art" and getting paid to do so. Folk art does not necessarily need support from a patron since it is typically fairly easy to make (i.e. it can be done in one's spare time). People will continue making folk art after they can no longer be ensured payment for their work, though to a lesser extent.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

ThomPete 15y ago

This is not true. Artist will always make art and always have.

bira 15y ago
As long as the artist can afford it. There ain't such thing as free art.
- ThomPete 15y ago
  There is no such thing as free anything. But there is plenty of great music out there that never made a single dime.
txxxxd 15y ago
Yes, of course individuals or small groups will still create art in their free time. You can't deny however that any massive undertakings would be effectively killed. No one will invest millions of dollars to produce a video game, or hundreds of millions to produce a movie if it can be freely copied. It's great that you can make a game or movie on a small budget, but isn't it better to live in a world where we can have both? Does the cost of copyright really outweigh the benefits of living in a society where creative people can devote all of their time producing content?
- ThomPete 15y ago
  1. Games and movies still makes lots of money 2. Streaming technologies will render the need for physically storing games, movies or anything more and more obsolete. 3. Just wait til the movie houses start using 3d models in stead. You see the problem is that you have to think about this in a much larger perpective to realize that things will even themselves out. With regards to cost of copyright. Then yes when it makes people criminals to the extent it do today and fines them with amounts it do then it is way way way to high.
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    I'm not sure game streaming would be any better, it may require less copyright but then what happens when the company decides it is no longer economically feasible to stream the game that you like to play? I'm not sure how 3d models would make a difference in movies? Many movies are already basically 3d renders.
    - ThomPete 15y ago
      The same thing that happens when a game gets discontinued today.
      - jiggy2011 15y ago
        That's not true at all, I have a large collection of games dating from around 1990 to present on my shelves. Assuming I can find the disks (most of them are in the wrong boxes) I can re-install any of them and play right now (ok I might have to install dosbox for some of them not to mention find a floppy drive). That's only true currently for games that are only playable via a single central online service (e.g WoW etc) and that's sort of dictated by the game format itself. What I mean is a world where all games are video streamed to you even if they are single player only.
        ThomPete 15y ago
        Sorry but you are just being silly now. We are talking about the current and future. You know times change. Anyway. I made my point already.
SilasX 15y ago
And (currently-existing) lumberjacks have always cut down trees, and (because of an identity now largely grounded therein) probably always will. Still, I'd rather not have to depend on charity-lumberjacking, you know? If someone wants to chop down trees for free, that's between him and his god (or dryad, as the case may be). If that's the only way trees ever get cut down? God help us all. Above statement refers, for purposes of argument, to sustainable tree harvesting, so as to avoid irrelevant side tangents.
- ThomPete 15y ago
  Way to go making a comparison that makes no sense at all. A lumberjack can't digitally mass produce cutting down trees. They have to actually be present at each tree.
  - SilasX 15y ago
    Yes, I know that you can identify differences between abolition of copyright and a ban on all monetary compensation for lumberjacks. What you cannot do, however, is find a difference that distinguishes them in a way that defends your argument that we shouldn't worry about a world where X is only produced by charity, since some people do X for free. If you don't care that art would only be produced for free, neither should you care if lumberjacking only happened by charity. If you're not ready to go that far, you might not want to lean so heavily on the argument that "(some) artists create for free".
    - ThomPete 15y ago
      Again who is talking about doing something for free? Don't blame me for you lack of imagination that would have allowed you to see a world where artist could create without making money on digitally mass produced songs. It is possible plenty of people are doing it. So please spare me the strawmen.
      - SilasX 15y ago
        >Again who is talking about doing something for free? The guy that cracked your account and used it to make these comments: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3480634 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3480634 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3480674 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3480674 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3480761 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3480761 >Don't blame me for you lack of imagination that would have allowed you to see a world where artist could create without making money on digitally mass produced songs. I'm sure, that, just as with making music, there are revenue models for lumberjacking that don't involve charging for lumberjacking services. For example, they could broadcast live video of themselves chopping down trees and charge for that. Or maybe trees should only be cut down by their owners so they're not technically earning money from chopping down a tree. Or, you know, we could just bypass the whole charade and let people charge for the lumberjacking/artistic creations that they were responsible for (if they so wish) rather than stick to some ideological belief that it's somehow wrong to do so while hoping they come up with some convoluted way to accomplish the same thing with more restricted means. It's great that there are ways to produce good X without invoking exclusivity rights in X; but for those (many) cases where X wouldn't otherwise be produced, I would like for that model to be an option. That doesn't mean the current copyright regime is optimal; far from it. It just means that the mentality of "IP sucks and everyone will produce valuable stuff for free" is looney.
msutherl 15y ago
Art – the kind you find in the museum – is entirely enabled by the concept of the "patron". Throughout most of history, patrons have been aristocrats and other wealthy peoples. Without wealthy people to support artists to make art, there will be no art. At the moment we have many people making something equivalent to "folk art" and getting paid to do so. Folk art does not necessarily need support from a patron since it is typically fairly easy to make (i.e. it can be done in one's spare time). People will continue making folk art after they can no longer be ensured payment for their work, though to a lesser extent.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]