11 ms·

I will make a slightly more controversial claim: With Kickstarter, who needs government granted monopolies for the arts? (ie., copyright) One should realize th

by luriel 14y ago

I will make a slightly more controversial claim: With Kickstarter, who needs government granted monopolies for the arts? (ie., copyright) One should realize that most of the greatest artworks in history were created without the "benefits" of copyright (and in many cases would have required infringing on copyright, writers and painters have borrowed from each others works all through history).

TylerE 14y ago
I don't think you can argue that at all. Until very recently (on an historical time scale), mechanical copying wasn't possible at all, so copyright isn't some new thing, practically, it's just that in ye olde days it wasn't a relevant concept because you couldn't copy art - there were no CDs or records, lithography, etc. If you wanted to hear a Beethoven symphony, you had to find an orchestra that was playing, and travel to see it. Even duplicating printed work was much more work, since the type would have to be reset by hand. While the funding model was certainly different, the era was much more different. Using the romantic era or earlier as proof that (in modern society) culture could flourish without copyright is ludicrous.
- ef4 14y ago
  Your distinction is an important one, but I think it amounts to the same effect in the end. Back then, you couldn't make money by selling many copies of your art because making copies was too difficult. Now, you can't make money by selling copies of your art because making copies is too easy. But in both cases, the effect on the artist is the same: he cannot sell many copies, so he must find other ways. Like concerts and patronage.
- jonhendry 14y ago
  Cervantes had to deal with a ripoff of Don Quixote while he was writing the second part of Don Quixote, after publishing part I. It even makes up part of the plot of part II. Another author published what they claimed to be part II. It's a different form of IP infringement than simple unauthorized duplication of a work, but it's been around for a long time.
  - luriel 14y ago
    Shakespeare and many others also "stole" from many other authors, both classic and contemporaries. Art, by its own nature, tends to infringe so called "intellectual property" rules.

by luriel 14y ago

TylerE 14y ago

I don't think you can argue that at all. Until very recently (on an historical time scale), mechanical copying wasn't possible at all, so copyright isn't some new thing, practically, it's just that in ye olde days it wasn't a relevant concept because you couldn't copy art - there were no CDs or records, lithography, etc. If you wanted to hear a Beethoven symphony, you had to find an orchestra that was playing, and travel to see it. Even duplicating printed work was much more work, since the type would have to be reset by hand. While the funding model was certainly different, the era was much more different. Using the romantic era or earlier as proof that (in modern society) culture could flourish without copyright is ludicrous.

ef4 14y ago
Your distinction is an important one, but I think it amounts to the same effect in the end. Back then, you couldn't make money by selling many copies of your art because making copies was too difficult. Now, you can't make money by selling copies of your art because making copies is too easy. But in both cases, the effect on the artist is the same: he cannot sell many copies, so he must find other ways. Like concerts and patronage.
jonhendry 14y ago
Cervantes had to deal with a ripoff of Don Quixote while he was writing the second part of Don Quixote, after publishing part I. It even makes up part of the plot of part II. Another author published what they claimed to be part II. It's a different form of IP infringement than simple unauthorized duplication of a work, but it's been around for a long time.
- luriel 14y ago
  Shakespeare and many others also "stole" from many other authors, both classic and contemporaries. Art, by its own nature, tends to infringe so called "intellectual property" rules.