3 ms·

...without making it almost impossible for artists to afford to be artists If we never had copyright enforcement, would we be thinking this way? Jokes aren't

...without making it almost impossible for artists to afford to be artists If we never had copyright enforcement, would we be thinking this way? Jokes aren't copyright-able, but we still have comedians. These copyright laws had their place in helping to alleviate a public goods problem of getting art to people. It allowed for the development of record labels and companies to distribute music. The distribution problem is over. The law is obsolete. The model is dying, and so are the types of jobs that depend on that model. We can't simply say that the model is justified because it's already there and in place.

pandaman 13y ago
What about financing problem, how are you going to finance production of movies, games and, even, music? And, most importantly, how are you going to compel authors to give their work into public domain? If there is not going to be significant copyright protection you can be sure there are going to be technical means doing the same except without a limited term. They are actually already there due to the weakened copyright. And no, teenagers are not going to crack DRM schemes the next day.
- acabal 13y ago
  The way art has been financed for the centuries before copyright existed: patronage. It seems like the modern equivalent is going to be Kickstarter et al.
  - pandaman 13y ago
    Sure, if you can afford that. Most people, especially among the torrentfreak audience are not going to afford even recording of an album for few K. I definitely cannot afford few dozen million for a blockbuster movie. And if Kickstarter had been sufficient there would not be torrentfreak at all - people would happily enjoy their donated/free art and stayed away from the copyrighted works, would not they?
    - thristian 13y ago
      Sites like bandcamp.com are filled with interesting music; maybe it cost a few thousand dollars to produce, maybe it was made by some guy in his parents' basement for a few hundred dollars and a lot of time and effort. You're right about blockbuster movies, though—nobody will make them anymore. Then again, nobody makes giant stone pyramids in the desert anymore, either, and for the same reason: economic conditions changed, and it wasn't a good way to spend money anymore.
      - skylan_q 13y ago
        You're right about blockbuster movies, though—nobody will make them anymore. Yes, I can see this happening as well. Why is it taken for granted that they are a necessity? I think people are just too set in their ways to comprehend the world any differently so they just start trying to justify why we need to keep things the way they are.
      - pandaman 13y ago
        And youtube is filled with the videos of cats. If you are into that stuff and don't care about blockbuster movies, commercial music etc. then you should not have any problem with copyright. It does not prevent you from enjoying your free art.
        skylan_q 13y ago
        It does not prevent you from enjoying your free art. It prevents people from building on existing copyrighted art. Talent is redirected to creating work that becomes copyrighted. As a result, people have less to draw from without paying royalties, so it does effect those who don't care for copyrighted work.
        pandaman 13y ago
        >It prevents people from building on existing copyrighted art. Does not prevent existing copyrighted art to be build so does not look like an issue to me. >Talent is redirected to creating work that becomes copyrighted. Authors prefer to be paid for their work? Let me ask you - if you had not been paid for whatever you do, would you continue doing that or found other, more productive occupation? As somebody who is being paid for creating copyrighted work I can assure you - I would not work for free, I'd do something else.
- skylan_q 13y ago
  And, most importantly, how are you going to compel authors to give their work into public domain? People made things public before copyright law existed. People continue to make things freely accessible and public in spite of current copyright laws. People aren't forced to do this, but they are compelled to.

pandaman 13y ago

What about financing problem, how are you going to finance production of movies, games and, even, music? And, most importantly, how are you going to compel authors to give their work into public domain? If there is not going to be significant copyright protection you can be sure there are going to be technical means doing the same except without a limited term. They are actually already there due to the weakened copyright. And no, teenagers are not going to crack DRM schemes the next day.

acabal 13y ago
The way art has been financed for the centuries before copyright existed: patronage. It seems like the modern equivalent is going to be Kickstarter et al.
- pandaman 13y ago
  Sure, if you can afford that. Most people, especially among the torrentfreak audience are not going to afford even recording of an album for few K. I definitely cannot afford few dozen million for a blockbuster movie. And if Kickstarter had been sufficient there would not be torrentfreak at all - people would happily enjoy their donated/free art and stayed away from the copyrighted works, would not they?
  - thristian 13y ago
    Sites like bandcamp.com are filled with interesting music; maybe it cost a few thousand dollars to produce, maybe it was made by some guy in his parents' basement for a few hundred dollars and a lot of time and effort. You're right about blockbuster movies, though—nobody will make them anymore. Then again, nobody makes giant stone pyramids in the desert anymore, either, and for the same reason: economic conditions changed, and it wasn't a good way to spend money anymore.
    - skylan_q 13y ago
      You're right about blockbuster movies, though—nobody will make them anymore. Yes, I can see this happening as well. Why is it taken for granted that they are a necessity? I think people are just too set in their ways to comprehend the world any differently so they just start trying to justify why we need to keep things the way they are.
    - pandaman 13y ago
      And youtube is filled with the videos of cats. If you are into that stuff and don't care about blockbuster movies, commercial music etc. then you should not have any problem with copyright. It does not prevent you from enjoying your free art.
      - skylan_q 13y ago
        It does not prevent you from enjoying your free art. It prevents people from building on existing copyrighted art. Talent is redirected to creating work that becomes copyrighted. As a result, people have less to draw from without paying royalties, so it does effect those who don't care for copyrighted work.
        pandaman 13y ago
        >It prevents people from building on existing copyrighted art. Does not prevent existing copyrighted art to be build so does not look like an issue to me. >Talent is redirected to creating work that becomes copyrighted. Authors prefer to be paid for their work? Let me ask you - if you had not been paid for whatever you do, would you continue doing that or found other, more productive occupation? As somebody who is being paid for creating copyrighted work I can assure you - I would not work for free, I'd do something else.
skylan_q 13y ago
And, most importantly, how are you going to compel authors to give their work into public domain? People made things public before copyright law existed. People continue to make things freely accessible and public in spite of current copyright laws. People aren't forced to do this, but they are compelled to.