4 ms·
"I say this as someone married to a composer, with friends who are writers and artists who, while not wealthy, are able to protect what income they have thanks
by ipaddr 3y ago
"I say this as someone married to a composer, with friends who are writers and artists who, while not wealthy, are able to protect what income they have thanks to copyright"
A composer shouldn't own a sequence of notes. An artist shouldn't own a sequence of color on paper. Pure art and producing work for money are polar opposites. Anyone producing art for money can hardly be called an artist.
- zdragnar 3y ago"No true Scotsman" at its finest. You're also basically arguing the only people who should be artists are the independently wealthy. I'd rather have moderately long lived copyright than lose the works of the many artists I've enjoyed who make a living from what they produce.
- EvanAnderson 3y agoThe perversion of “limited times” in the current US copyright regime fosters these extreme opinions. It’s a social contract. At present, it’s not an equitable example of one.
- kelnos 3y ago"Shouldn't" is entirely your opinion, and many people happen to disagree with it. Ultimately what should actually matter is what makes the world a better/best place for the most people. Our current copyright regime isn't doing that, but it's not at all clear that having no copyright at all would be better than having some much more limited form of copyright.