5 ms·

The ONLY reason these disgusting predators can colonize human cultural output like this is the antisocial, and tremendously stupid copyright laws enacted. It a

The ONLY reason these disgusting predators can colonize human cultural output like this is the antisocial, and tremendously stupid copyright laws enacted. It always makes me wonder why people want a tiny cartel of companies to own humanity’s music culture, and subsequently be able to bully companies like Spotify, Youtube and others into enforcing extrajudicial policies that maintain the cartel’s dominance. Like, seriously, what is the perceived societal value here???

lotsoweiners 3y ago
Because normal people don’t care about “human cultural output” or “societal value” and think people who use those kinds of terms sound like blowhards. The rest of us just want reasonably cheap, convenient entertainment. Artists and others in the music biz want to get paid. Nothing here that is very hard to understand.
- mixmastamyk 3y ago
  Normal people do like free stuff it turns out. And typically not going to pay when it's ancient anyway. Instead of going without, they could give it a try. They'd like that too—if they knew it was possible and even encouraged.
  - IndySun 3y ago
    Can you please add a link to your free art, movie, album, musical, and/or poem. Or do you only supply links to other peoples said art?
    - tux3 3y ago
      Some people like creating enough that they'll even do it for free, as a hobby, sometimes in addition to doing in professionally and getting paid good money for it. Sometimes it's drawings, sometimes it's music, sometimes it's software on www.github.com. But I'm not sure the point of asking people to link their own free work in context, how would that change the discussion? Is the proposal to gatekeep who can access the Internet Archive and share links to other people's art on whether they're enough of an artist themselves? If you think it's wrong for people to archive old art that's not sold anymore, it seems to me that should hold regardless of whether the archivist has a Devianart and a Bandcamp account of their own
      - IndySun 3y ago
        "some people" like creating art for free. They presumably would be people who do not need to create art for money, ergo? (typo)
        tux3 3y ago
        I'm not really sure I understand why I should suppose that. I've seen people in every category, who started with a passion and did or did not turn it into a job, and did or did find the time to keep making art for the love of it You can do art for money or not, I just don't see how you're trying to relate this to archival of music that is no longer sold, whose authors aren't around anymore. I get the impression you're trying to ask people who archive art whether they make art themselves, but I fail to see the point. Very possibly they do, but then so what?
        IndySun 3y ago
        'You can do art for money or not', does not compute in the poverty stricken corners of this planet. A staggeringly blasé remark. US Copyright laws, that tend to circle the globe, are obnoxious, favoring the already wealthy or established entities to make creativity an unfair business. I look forward to the change. I am not advocating a blanket position on 'art', or any human endeavour, for that matter. But it would be amiss to not at least mention wider implications to society and culture as a whole.
        tux3 3y ago
        Sure, but at some point it's a debate of high-contextualisation versus low. We can commiserate about the poverty stricken corners of the planet. And I'm happy to recomend global health charities. It's taking effort not to. But what's that have to do with the much more specific legal situation the Internet Archive is in, with old archived works of audio?
        IndySun 3y ago
        How? Firstly, do not commiserate poverty. I think you might mean something else. I hope. Not sure what you mean by 'high contextualisation'. I put ballet dancers on a par with accountants, scientists, and (above) politicians. Not above scientists et al, you mind, on a par. The question specific to IA being pursued and my role here is to do with questioning the somewhat regimented reaction on this forum. I have already said 'context' is critical. And blanket change never works, evolution, not revolution. There are considered views that aught to be seen by people other than the converted.
    - mixmastamyk 3y ago
      You missed the part where we are talking about ancient work and dead people. Think—Hitchcock movies. My personal software is floss BTW.
    - ponderings 3y ago
      I don't like answering questions with questions but how would you know it is mine? How do you firmly tie the license to the art work? How do you tie parts of a remix to different licenses? How do the songs on my security camera work? How do we record the licenses onto the security footage? Can we play security camera footage at someones funeral? If not, how do we obtain the license so that we may pay the right conglomerate?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - beej71 3y ago
      I'm always happy to drop links to my free (beer) books, no SEO, DRM, ads, or tracking. Simply knowledge for the sake of knowledge. But it's kinda OT on this thread and feels too much like blatant self-promotion, so I'll refrain. :)
- b59831 3y ago
  [dead]
- uni_rule 3y ago
  This point would work better if the vast majority of artists actually were paid well.
IndySun 3y ago
So the answer to 'disgusting predators' is to declare all 'art' (ludicrous distinction, why not everything, and why art?) free? Why not go after the 'disgusting predators' instead?
- zdragnar 3y ago
  The value of art is in the experience of observing it (excepting the case of proxy transactions for money laundering). A picture or video of a bike doesn't substitute for an actual bike if you need to ride it to the store. An illicit digital copy of a song, however, is pretty fungible for an officially licensed digital copy. I am much more inclined to suggest we look for better business models to support creators than compel them to live in poverty for my amusement (or deny their children the right to manage their estate).
- kragen 3y ago
  you seem to be suggesting that abolishing copyright is tantamount to abolishing private property this is obviously nonsense; no human society is known without private property, though there are extremely well-attested societies without writing, without farming, without war, without monogamy, without women, and without clothing by contrast, all human societies were free of copyright for hundreds of thousands of years until 313 years ago, and in practice most still are nobody is suggesting making it legal to carry away other people's paintings, records, and books because they are 'art' we are suggesting making it reliably legal to copy them, because the freedom to reproduce art is something that nobody should ever be denied; retelling stories you've been told, and perhaps playing music you've heard, is as fundamental to being human as private property is. laws granting monopolies on stories and songs for the sake of profit are an intolerable abomination
  - thethimble 3y ago
    Without women?? Genuinely curious how this is sustainable.
    - kragen 3y ago
amelius 3y ago
Yes, it was a mistake. But now these companies have power and the law won't change.

lotsoweiners 3y ago

Because normal people don’t care about “human cultural output” or “societal value” and think people who use those kinds of terms sound like blowhards. The rest of us just want reasonably cheap, convenient entertainment. Artists and others in the music biz want to get paid. Nothing here that is very hard to understand.

mixmastamyk 3y ago
Normal people do like free stuff it turns out. And typically not going to pay when it's ancient anyway. Instead of going without, they could give it a try. They'd like that too—if they knew it was possible and even encouraged.
- IndySun 3y ago
  Can you please add a link to your free art, movie, album, musical, and/or poem. Or do you only supply links to other peoples said art?
  - tux3 3y ago
    Some people like creating enough that they'll even do it for free, as a hobby, sometimes in addition to doing in professionally and getting paid good money for it. Sometimes it's drawings, sometimes it's music, sometimes it's software on www.github.com. But I'm not sure the point of asking people to link their own free work in context, how would that change the discussion? Is the proposal to gatekeep who can access the Internet Archive and share links to other people's art on whether they're enough of an artist themselves? If you think it's wrong for people to archive old art that's not sold anymore, it seems to me that should hold regardless of whether the archivist has a Devianart and a Bandcamp account of their own
    - IndySun 3y ago
      "some people" like creating art for free. They presumably would be people who do not need to create art for money, ergo? (typo)
      - tux3 3y ago
        I'm not really sure I understand why I should suppose that. I've seen people in every category, who started with a passion and did or did not turn it into a job, and did or did find the time to keep making art for the love of it You can do art for money or not, I just don't see how you're trying to relate this to archival of music that is no longer sold, whose authors aren't around anymore. I get the impression you're trying to ask people who archive art whether they make art themselves, but I fail to see the point. Very possibly they do, but then so what?
        IndySun 3y ago
        'You can do art for money or not', does not compute in the poverty stricken corners of this planet. A staggeringly blasé remark. US Copyright laws, that tend to circle the globe, are obnoxious, favoring the already wealthy or established entities to make creativity an unfair business. I look forward to the change. I am not advocating a blanket position on 'art', or any human endeavour, for that matter. But it would be amiss to not at least mention wider implications to society and culture as a whole.
        tux3 3y ago
        Sure, but at some point it's a debate of high-contextualisation versus low. We can commiserate about the poverty stricken corners of the planet. And I'm happy to recomend global health charities. It's taking effort not to. But what's that have to do with the much more specific legal situation the Internet Archive is in, with old archived works of audio?
        IndySun 3y ago
        How? Firstly, do not commiserate poverty. I think you might mean something else. I hope. Not sure what you mean by 'high contextualisation'. I put ballet dancers on a par with accountants, scientists, and (above) politicians. Not above scientists et al, you mind, on a par. The question specific to IA being pursued and my role here is to do with questioning the somewhat regimented reaction on this forum. I have already said 'context' is critical. And blanket change never works, evolution, not revolution. There are considered views that aught to be seen by people other than the converted.
  - mixmastamyk 3y ago
    You missed the part where we are talking about ancient work and dead people. Think—Hitchcock movies. My personal software is floss BTW.
  - ponderings 3y ago
    I don't like answering questions with questions but how would you know it is mine? How do you firmly tie the license to the art work? How do you tie parts of a remix to different licenses? How do the songs on my security camera work? How do we record the licenses onto the security footage? Can we play security camera footage at someones funeral? If not, how do we obtain the license so that we may pay the right conglomerate?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - beej71 3y ago
    I'm always happy to drop links to my free (beer) books, no SEO, DRM, ads, or tracking. Simply knowledge for the sake of knowledge. But it's kinda OT on this thread and feels too much like blatant self-promotion, so I'll refrain. :)
b59831 3y ago
[dead]
uni_rule 3y ago
This point would work better if the vast majority of artists actually were paid well.

IndySun 3y ago

So the answer to 'disgusting predators' is to declare all 'art' (ludicrous distinction, why not everything, and why art?) free? Why not go after the 'disgusting predators' instead?

zdragnar 3y ago
The value of art is in the experience of observing it (excepting the case of proxy transactions for money laundering). A picture or video of a bike doesn't substitute for an actual bike if you need to ride it to the store. An illicit digital copy of a song, however, is pretty fungible for an officially licensed digital copy. I am much more inclined to suggest we look for better business models to support creators than compel them to live in poverty for my amusement (or deny their children the right to manage their estate).
kragen 3y ago
you seem to be suggesting that abolishing copyright is tantamount to abolishing private property this is obviously nonsense; no human society is known without private property, though there are extremely well-attested societies without writing, without farming, without war, without monogamy, without women, and without clothing by contrast, all human societies were free of copyright for hundreds of thousands of years until 313 years ago, and in practice most still are nobody is suggesting making it legal to carry away other people's paintings, records, and books because they are 'art' we are suggesting making it reliably legal to copy them, because the freedom to reproduce art is something that nobody should ever be denied; retelling stories you've been told, and perhaps playing music you've heard, is as fundamental to being human as private property is. laws granting monopolies on stories and songs for the sake of profit are an intolerable abomination
- thethimble 3y ago
  Without women?? Genuinely curious how this is sustainable.
  - kragen 3y ago

amelius 3y ago

Yes, it was a mistake. But now these companies have power and the law won't change.