4 ms·

There are fewer well-known paths for someone running a Threadless shop to pursue action against H&M than there are for the publishing trades. The author's reme

There are fewer well-known paths for someone running a Threadless shop to pursue action against H&M than there are for the publishing trades. The author's remedy for this is: abandon expectation that you can capture value from your work - seek ye instead a wealthy patron. Someone else will monetize your work better than you, so why bother trying? I have a lot of problems with the recording industry as a whole, and the publishing industry as a whole, but - when Eminem samples Dido, or when Prodigy samples The Art of Noise, when the Beach Boys rip off Chuck Berry, there's a whole machine that can go to work to help enable paying the original artist for their work through well established channels. It's precisely because of their use of copyright law and certain mandates around attribution that you're more aware of well off writers and artists than you are of fashion designers. Or typographers! There are plenty of bad uses of copyright law as well, in my opinion. Should the Rolling Stones have sued The Verve out of existence over Bittersweet Symphony? Why were so many African American hip hop acts sued publicly, with sample heavy white acts not receiving the same negative attention? (Vanilla Ice not withstanding) The grandchildren and estates of deceased artists asking outrageous licensing fees for creative works that they merely inherit, due to copyright extension, is poisoning the well - copyright is meant to expire, works go into the public domain, to seed new interpretations and allow wider access. Anyway, I'm on a tear. I think artists who create original works should be given power to capture value produced by their labor.

throwawaymaths 3y ago
> I think artists who create original works should be given power to capture value produced by their labor Nobody thinks artists should not have that power. The relevant question is should artists be able to impinge on the freedom of other people to do what they want. If I am riding a bike, and you take my bike, that deprives me the use of said bike, and I have to take the bus. That is that theft looks like. If I write a song and you copy the song and start charging audiences to come to a performance or sell a cd, I can still charge audiences to come to a performance or sell a cd. In fact it is often the case that artists are more successful after someone has copied their work than before.
- kelnos 3y ago
  > If I write a song and you copy the song and start charging audiences to come to a performance or sell a cd, I can still charge audiences to come to a performance or sell a cd. Yes, and someone else doing that will almost certainly mean less money for you. You seem comfortable with that; fine, others are not. > In fact it is often the case that artists are more successful after someone has copied their work than before. Big fat "citation needed" there. I won't say that never happens, because certainly it does, but saying it happens "often" (at least, often enough to indicate abolishing copyright) doesn't pass the smell test with me, and requires some evidence.
  - throwawaymaths 3y ago
    > Yes, and someone else doing that will almost certainly mean less money for you Wrong. Economies are not zero-sum. Demand can be created.

throwawaymaths 3y ago

> I think artists who create original works should be given power to capture value produced by their labor Nobody thinks artists should not have that power. The relevant question is should artists be able to impinge on the freedom of other people to do what they want. If I am riding a bike, and you take my bike, that deprives me the use of said bike, and I have to take the bus. That is that theft looks like. If I write a song and you copy the song and start charging audiences to come to a performance or sell a cd, I can still charge audiences to come to a performance or sell a cd. In fact it is often the case that artists are more successful after someone has copied their work than before.

kelnos 3y ago
> If I write a song and you copy the song and start charging audiences to come to a performance or sell a cd, I can still charge audiences to come to a performance or sell a cd. Yes, and someone else doing that will almost certainly mean less money for you. You seem comfortable with that; fine, others are not. > In fact it is often the case that artists are more successful after someone has copied their work than before. Big fat "citation needed" there. I won't say that never happens, because certainly it does, but saying it happens "often" (at least, often enough to indicate abolishing copyright) doesn't pass the smell test with me, and requires some evidence.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  > Yes, and someone else doing that will almost certainly mean less money for you Wrong. Economies are not zero-sum. Demand can be created.