3 ms·
Great, that way is called copyright. The author has the right to control who has the rights to distribute their work, and can require compensation in exchange f
by deaton 3mo ago
Great, that way is called copyright. The author has the right to control who has the rights to distribute their work, and can require compensation in exchange for that right; what economists refer to as "selling".
- satvikpendem 3mo agoPeople have been paid artists before copyright even existed, what some might call patronage.
- freejazz 3mo agoAnd?
- satvikpendem 3mo agoTherefore copyright is not necessary.
- freejazz 3mo agoThat's a big leap
- Lerc 3mo agoFor strict definitiond of necessary (see also sufficient) this is correct. A is not necessary for B if a single instance of B exists without A. In colloquial terms it is frequently used to suggest a recommendation with an imperitive need. Different things for the same word. Only the former can be used to determine if something is necessary, the latter is a subjective assertion and can have no proof either way.
- satvikpendem 3mo agoIt worked before so why would copyright be in any way necessary?
- freejazz 3mo agoThe idea that art was made at all contradicts a premise offered by no one
- satvikpendem 3mo agoYou just replied "and" so not sure what premise you're even offing then.
- freejazz 3mo agoYou've replied to several of my posts in this thread, no need to play a fool
- Lerc 3mo agoThe entire thesis of my commrnt is copyright is not that. It awards a few creators outsize rewards, but suppress creation of many more. It does not petform the job that it is supposed to do.
- freejazz 3mo ago>The entire thesis of my commrnt is copyright is not that. Your entire thesis is false on its face. One does not need a big publisher to get published or make there work available. You've also offered no other alternative wherein the other works not sought by large publishers will somehow be afforded equivalent treatment so your proposition is just ridiculous if not outright ignorant.