11 ms·

In pursuit of their business interests, not out of constraints inherent to writing/music/film/art.

res0nat0r 13y ago
I'll wager that their business interests are directly inherent to their writing/music/film/art. The meme that artists somehow shouldn't expect to be paid for their work needs to be stopped. Many wouldn't have the ability to continue creating their product if they weren't being paid for the time and effort it takes to produce it.
- baddox 13y ago
  > The meme that artists somehow shouldn't expect to be paid for their work needs to be stopped. Who has said that? I think there should be zero IP protection laws, but I believe that artists should expect to be paid for their work, and indeed would be paid for their work.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    Most comments here when it comes to piracy are along the lines of: Welllll it's easy for me to take your product for free thanks to fast bandwidth and the Internet, so you shouldn't expect to be paid for your work since I can easily obtain it now without consequence. That's nonsense.
alexqgb 13y ago
The number of generally appreciated works produced and delivered with $0 in costs is so small as to be not worth mentioning. Money, and therefore exchange (i.e. business) is inseparable from just about anything worth anyone's attention. Indeed, money is as inseparable from the most popular art forms as gravity is from rocketry. Entire mediums wax and wane in response to the flow of finance. Film, opera, books, television, to say nothing of architecture are almost evntierly defined by the commercial melieu. Mastery of this dimension provides the very cornerstone of professional accomplishment, since nothing else is possible without the requisite budget. To the extent that time is money, every creative type who values the often considerable amount of time it takes to produce the work they want to produce understands the constraints of finance in their bones. They all do their best to do the most with what they can get. That a big part of the reason they get so frustrated with audiences who refuse to pay. How can you possibly fail to recognize this?
- baddox 13y ago
  In your model, which seems to assume that IP laws result in a net positive to society by some measure, do you actually figure in the cost to society of maintaining and enforcing the IP laws?
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    If it is so detrimental why hasn't it been replaced with something better? Note any conspiracy about the MAFIAA running the show behind the scenes as to why it hasn't been replaced aren't reasonable...
    - betterunix 13y ago
      Why is it unreasonable to think that copyright has been maintained because of lobbyists when copyright was established by a vast lobbying effort in the first place? The Statute of Anne was created following literally years of pressure on the British parliament by the publishers who wanted to revive the monopoly they had once held under the Licensing of the Press Act. At no point did the politicians actually care about artists or art; it was money, from the very beginning until today.
      - res0nat0r 13y ago
        >Why is it unreasonable to think that copyright has been maintained because of lobbyists when copyright was established by a vast lobbying effort in the first place? This is possibly true, but ignoring the fact that many artists still continue to release their work under copyright vs. some sort of free license without any compensation.
        betterunix 13y ago
        That is a false dichotomy and you are ignoring the fact that we never spent much time setting up any other system for compensating artists. This also ignores the fact that the vast majority of artists have to do some other work, usually full time, just to pay their rent. It also ignores the large body of art and entertainment that existed prior to copyrights, much of which was produced without any hope or guarantee of payment.

I'll wager that their business interests are directly inherent to their writing/music/film/art. The meme that artists somehow shouldn't expect to be paid for their work needs to be stopped. Many wouldn't have the ability to continue creating their product if they weren't being paid for the time and effort it takes to produce it.

baddox 13y ago
> The meme that artists somehow shouldn't expect to be paid for their work needs to be stopped. Who has said that? I think there should be zero IP protection laws, but I believe that artists should expect to be paid for their work, and indeed would be paid for their work.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Most comments here when it comes to piracy are along the lines of: Welllll it's easy for me to take your product for free thanks to fast bandwidth and the Internet, so you shouldn't expect to be paid for your work since I can easily obtain it now without consequence. That's nonsense.

alexqgb 13y ago

The number of generally appreciated works produced and delivered with $0 in costs is so small as to be not worth mentioning. Money, and therefore exchange (i.e. business) is inseparable from just about anything worth anyone's attention. Indeed, money is as inseparable from the most popular art forms as gravity is from rocketry. Entire mediums wax and wane in response to the flow of finance. Film, opera, books, television, to say nothing of architecture are almost evntierly defined by the commercial melieu. Mastery of this dimension provides the very cornerstone of professional accomplishment, since nothing else is possible without the requisite budget. To the extent that time is money, every creative type who values the often considerable amount of time it takes to produce the work they want to produce understands the constraints of finance in their bones. They all do their best to do the most with what they can get. That a big part of the reason they get so frustrated with audiences who refuse to pay. How can you possibly fail to recognize this?

baddox 13y ago
In your model, which seems to assume that IP laws result in a net positive to society by some measure, do you actually figure in the cost to society of maintaining and enforcing the IP laws?
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  If it is so detrimental why hasn't it been replaced with something better? Note any conspiracy about the MAFIAA running the show behind the scenes as to why it hasn't been replaced aren't reasonable...
  - betterunix 13y ago
    Why is it unreasonable to think that copyright has been maintained because of lobbyists when copyright was established by a vast lobbying effort in the first place? The Statute of Anne was created following literally years of pressure on the British parliament by the publishers who wanted to revive the monopoly they had once held under the Licensing of the Press Act. At no point did the politicians actually care about artists or art; it was money, from the very beginning until today.
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      >Why is it unreasonable to think that copyright has been maintained because of lobbyists when copyright was established by a vast lobbying effort in the first place? This is possibly true, but ignoring the fact that many artists still continue to release their work under copyright vs. some sort of free license without any compensation.
      - betterunix 13y ago
        That is a false dichotomy and you are ignoring the fact that we never spent much time setting up any other system for compensating artists. This also ignores the fact that the vast majority of artists have to do some other work, usually full time, just to pay their rent. It also ignores the large body of art and entertainment that existed prior to copyrights, much of which was produced without any hope or guarantee of payment.