5 ms·

It's just shocking — absolutly SHOCKING — to see how many artists expect to get paid for their work. Why, the NERVE of those people. How DARE they ruin our enjo

by alexqgb 13y ago

It's just shocking — absolutly SHOCKING — to see how many artists expect to get paid for their work. Why, the NERVE of those people. How DARE they ruin our enjoyment by bringing up petty concerns such as their private business interests?

baddox 13y ago
Lots of artists create work that is not or cannot be protected by copyright and other IP laws, so the mental model your sarcasm suggests doesn't seem to accurately represent reality.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  And yet, some of the most popular forms continue to be ones that rarely—if ever—exist without copyright protection. Why not admit that copyright and culture evolved together, and that suddenly trashing one does irreparable harm to the other? I'm not saying that reforms aren't in order. After all, the 21st century is its own special thing. But it has yet to replace art forms that have spent (no exaggeration) centuries developing with the aid and support of copyright. To the extent that nobody has come up with a better solution to the problem of high capital requirements and near-zero marginal costs, it's the best arrangement we've got, especially when the preference for expensive productions is as clear as its ever been.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "Why not admit that copyright and culture evolved together, and that suddenly trashing one does irreparable harm to the other?" You are confusing correlation with causation. Copyright as we know it today is the result of a change in technology -- the printing press -- which also caused changes in culture. Prior to printing presses copying books was a vital service, worthy of praise and encouraged by society as a way to preserve knowledge (at least among those societies that gave a damn about such things). Ancient Greek science was preserved because Arab scholars copied Greek works. The Library of Alexandria had a vast collection because books were copied by law. Ironically, we might never have developed the technology that led to copyright law had it not been for such copying. Of course, how technology left to copyright is very different from how that technology changed culture. Copyright was the result of many years of efforts by the British government to censor printed material, which ultimately failed for political reasons. The censorship effort did create a very powerful lobby of printers who pushed very hard to reestablish the monopoly they had enjoyed during that effort, and who ultimately managed to get what they wanted in the form of copyrights. This is basically orthogonal to the cultural changes. "the preference for expensive productions is as clear as its ever been." Maybe those productions are a waste of resources that have been made economically viable by copyright. Do you really think people would be unable to produce and enjoy entertainment without the copyright system? It might mean the death of films that cost as much as it would take to end world hunger, but not the death of entertainment. The printing press changed how we communicate. Computers are doing so as well, and like it or not, entertainment will be affected as much by this change as it was by the printing press.
    - alexqgb 13y ago
      I am not confusing correlation with causation. I am stating (correctly) that the trajectory of development followed by several of the most popular creative forms is directly related to the emergence an development of modern copyright law. It is absurd to insist that the contours of the legal environment governing a trade, and the products created under those arrangements just "happen" to reflect one another (i.e. coincidental correlation), and that they're not products of direct causation. As someone who has actually worked for years in a field shaped by copyright, I can assure you, the parameters of the law have a tremendous effect on what does and doesn't take place. And programs don't just happen to randomly conform to the legal environment magically, all by themselves. They conform because there are people whose entire jobs revolve around making sure that all the rights and clearances that are needed to make a legally marketable product have, in fact, been cleared. These are non-trivial requirements, and the development, production, and distribution of filmed media are all heavily influenced by these commercial and legal requirements. It's more than correlation. It's causation. No debate, full stop. You're also quite wrong about British printers recovering the monopoly they lost following the passage of Queen Anne's Law (1709/10 - the first modern copyright law). This transferred the basic right to print copies from the Printer's Guilds to the authors of a work, with whom it has remained to this very day. There is no longer any monopoly on printing itself and nor has there been for more than 300 years (at least in the English speaking world). The only "monopolies" that exist relate to specific works, and those accrue to the author of that work alone, or to whoever he sells the copyright. John D. Rockefeller ran a monopoly. AT&T ran a monopoly. No media or publishing company (at least, in the English speaking world) has enjoyed a monopoly for over three centuries. And no, controlling specific properties is not considred a monopoly any more than owning a house is considered a "monopoly" on that particular address. While it's true that some of today's publishers have become very powerful, this is because they adapted to the legal change by becoming, in essence, highly specialized financiers — the venture capital of the media world, really — and pairing this with development operations that optimized their deal flow as well as making possible the highly collaborative media arts that became the defining cultural forms in the 20th century. But again, these developments weren't coincidental to changes in the law, they were the direct results. Like I said, the law and the creative forms that most people like the most today are highly inter-related. Everything from movies to broadcasts to recorded orchestras to video games exist because of the law as it currently stands and the underlying business arrangements that it both necessitated and enabled. All I'm saying I that these two things go hand in hand. Sudden radical collapse of the law — for whatever reason — will have a traumatic effect on the art forms which depend on it. And again, these are hugely popular forms which have taken ages to develop an for which no clear substitutes exist.
betterunix 13y ago
That is not what copyright is about. Copyright is about raising money for the sort of companies that comprise the RIAA, MPAA, etc. The overwhelming majority of artists, even those who have deals with such companies, have to work a day job just to make ends meet. This has been the invariant of copyright since it was first established at the behest of the big businesses of the day.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  The RIAA/MPAA are not companies. They are trade associations that represent a small number of admittedly large companies. It's also flatly incorrect to say that the "overwhelming majority of artists who work with these companies have seperate day jobs." I assure you, nearly every name you see on every credit roll on every film or television program produced by these studios is that of a professional, not a part timer. For one thing, 12-14 hour days and 5-6 day weeks are the norm. There's no time for a second job even if people wanted one. Yes, there are lots of people who hustle while trying to break in, but that's a different story. As with any job highly dependent on specialized skills, producers want to work with people who work constantly because those are the people who have got the sharpest abilities. Frankly, there's too much money on the line to take chances on amatuers. I can't speak to the realities of the record business, since I don't know it first hand. But given what I do know, I can safely say that (a) you don't really know what you're talking about and (b) what you think you know is demonstrably wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, of course. I just don't want anyone reading this to make the mistake of thinking that your opinions are the product of careful thought or a firm grasp of basic facts because they just aren't.
adamlett 13y ago
> It's just shocking — absolutly SHOCKING — to see how many artists expect to get paid for their work This is so backwards. Getting paid -- as in getting compensated for work -- is usually something you have agreed upon _before_ you do the work.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  Uh, that's exactly what copyright is: a pre-existing social and legal agreement about the terms on which people can expect to get paid, which they can reliably use to determine the scope of investment required by the work itself. Moreover, its current form (more or less) has been in place for well over a century, while its original form dates back more than three centuries. I'm not sure how much further in advance you were expecting. Also, people getting paid royalties aren't being paid directly for their labor. They're charging rent on property they own. Copyright law is similar to tangible property law in the sense that people make investments based on how well protected they think those investment are likely to be. No reasonable protection, no reasonable investment. To the extent that the law is enforceable, people making these investments fully — and reasonably — expect it to be enforced.
  - adamlett 13y ago
    Copyright is what the word implies: The (exclusive) right to make copies of something. No more, no less. Whether someone can turn that into something you can make money doing, is not and should not be concern for the law. People make works all the time that they can't sell. Does copyright give them the right to expect to be paid anyway? If artists insist on grossly overpricing their work, does copyright protect them from consumers choosing not to buy?
    - alexqgb 13y ago
      There's obviously no right to get paid for copies that don't get made. And that's not what people are insisting on when they talk about their right to get paid for their work. What they're talking about are the copies that do get made without any payment in return. That the real bone of contention. And really, it's not even the copies that artists and publishers care about. What concerns them is the money legally owed but illegally withheld. See the problem? If you - personally - feel something is overpriced, leave it on the shelf. That's how you send signals in market economies. I mean, do you honestly think your rights are being infringed upon if someone refuses to sell you something at a price you're unable or unwilling to pay? As an aside, copyright protection isn't limited to the making of copies. It also covers the creation of derivative works (i.e. adaptations) and the sale and / or distribution of copies and derivatives. FYI.

by alexqgb 13y ago

baddox 13y ago

Lots of artists create work that is not or cannot be protected by copyright and other IP laws, so the mental model your sarcasm suggests doesn't seem to accurately represent reality.

alexqgb 13y ago
And yet, some of the most popular forms continue to be ones that rarely—if ever—exist without copyright protection. Why not admit that copyright and culture evolved together, and that suddenly trashing one does irreparable harm to the other? I'm not saying that reforms aren't in order. After all, the 21st century is its own special thing. But it has yet to replace art forms that have spent (no exaggeration) centuries developing with the aid and support of copyright. To the extent that nobody has come up with a better solution to the problem of high capital requirements and near-zero marginal costs, it's the best arrangement we've got, especially when the preference for expensive productions is as clear as its ever been.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "Why not admit that copyright and culture evolved together, and that suddenly trashing one does irreparable harm to the other?" You are confusing correlation with causation. Copyright as we know it today is the result of a change in technology -- the printing press -- which also caused changes in culture. Prior to printing presses copying books was a vital service, worthy of praise and encouraged by society as a way to preserve knowledge (at least among those societies that gave a damn about such things). Ancient Greek science was preserved because Arab scholars copied Greek works. The Library of Alexandria had a vast collection because books were copied by law. Ironically, we might never have developed the technology that led to copyright law had it not been for such copying. Of course, how technology left to copyright is very different from how that technology changed culture. Copyright was the result of many years of efforts by the British government to censor printed material, which ultimately failed for political reasons. The censorship effort did create a very powerful lobby of printers who pushed very hard to reestablish the monopoly they had enjoyed during that effort, and who ultimately managed to get what they wanted in the form of copyrights. This is basically orthogonal to the cultural changes. "the preference for expensive productions is as clear as its ever been." Maybe those productions are a waste of resources that have been made economically viable by copyright. Do you really think people would be unable to produce and enjoy entertainment without the copyright system? It might mean the death of films that cost as much as it would take to end world hunger, but not the death of entertainment. The printing press changed how we communicate. Computers are doing so as well, and like it or not, entertainment will be affected as much by this change as it was by the printing press.
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    I am not confusing correlation with causation. I am stating (correctly) that the trajectory of development followed by several of the most popular creative forms is directly related to the emergence an development of modern copyright law. It is absurd to insist that the contours of the legal environment governing a trade, and the products created under those arrangements just "happen" to reflect one another (i.e. coincidental correlation), and that they're not products of direct causation. As someone who has actually worked for years in a field shaped by copyright, I can assure you, the parameters of the law have a tremendous effect on what does and doesn't take place. And programs don't just happen to randomly conform to the legal environment magically, all by themselves. They conform because there are people whose entire jobs revolve around making sure that all the rights and clearances that are needed to make a legally marketable product have, in fact, been cleared. These are non-trivial requirements, and the development, production, and distribution of filmed media are all heavily influenced by these commercial and legal requirements. It's more than correlation. It's causation. No debate, full stop. You're also quite wrong about British printers recovering the monopoly they lost following the passage of Queen Anne's Law (1709/10 - the first modern copyright law). This transferred the basic right to print copies from the Printer's Guilds to the authors of a work, with whom it has remained to this very day. There is no longer any monopoly on printing itself and nor has there been for more than 300 years (at least in the English speaking world). The only "monopolies" that exist relate to specific works, and those accrue to the author of that work alone, or to whoever he sells the copyright. John D. Rockefeller ran a monopoly. AT&T ran a monopoly. No media or publishing company (at least, in the English speaking world) has enjoyed a monopoly for over three centuries. And no, controlling specific properties is not considred a monopoly any more than owning a house is considered a "monopoly" on that particular address. While it's true that some of today's publishers have become very powerful, this is because they adapted to the legal change by becoming, in essence, highly specialized financiers — the venture capital of the media world, really — and pairing this with development operations that optimized their deal flow as well as making possible the highly collaborative media arts that became the defining cultural forms in the 20th century. But again, these developments weren't coincidental to changes in the law, they were the direct results. Like I said, the law and the creative forms that most people like the most today are highly inter-related. Everything from movies to broadcasts to recorded orchestras to video games exist because of the law as it currently stands and the underlying business arrangements that it both necessitated and enabled. All I'm saying I that these two things go hand in hand. Sudden radical collapse of the law — for whatever reason — will have a traumatic effect on the art forms which depend on it. And again, these are hugely popular forms which have taken ages to develop an for which no clear substitutes exist.

betterunix 13y ago

That is not what copyright is about. Copyright is about raising money for the sort of companies that comprise the RIAA, MPAA, etc. The overwhelming majority of artists, even those who have deals with such companies, have to work a day job just to make ends meet. This has been the invariant of copyright since it was first established at the behest of the big businesses of the day.

alexqgb 13y ago
The RIAA/MPAA are not companies. They are trade associations that represent a small number of admittedly large companies. It's also flatly incorrect to say that the "overwhelming majority of artists who work with these companies have seperate day jobs." I assure you, nearly every name you see on every credit roll on every film or television program produced by these studios is that of a professional, not a part timer. For one thing, 12-14 hour days and 5-6 day weeks are the norm. There's no time for a second job even if people wanted one. Yes, there are lots of people who hustle while trying to break in, but that's a different story. As with any job highly dependent on specialized skills, producers want to work with people who work constantly because those are the people who have got the sharpest abilities. Frankly, there's too much money on the line to take chances on amatuers. I can't speak to the realities of the record business, since I don't know it first hand. But given what I do know, I can safely say that (a) you don't really know what you're talking about and (b) what you think you know is demonstrably wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, of course. I just don't want anyone reading this to make the mistake of thinking that your opinions are the product of careful thought or a firm grasp of basic facts because they just aren't.

adamlett 13y ago

> It's just shocking — absolutly SHOCKING — to see how many artists expect to get paid for their work This is so backwards. Getting paid -- as in getting compensated for work -- is usually something you have agreed upon _before_ you do the work.

alexqgb 13y ago
Uh, that's exactly what copyright is: a pre-existing social and legal agreement about the terms on which people can expect to get paid, which they can reliably use to determine the scope of investment required by the work itself. Moreover, its current form (more or less) has been in place for well over a century, while its original form dates back more than three centuries. I'm not sure how much further in advance you were expecting. Also, people getting paid royalties aren't being paid directly for their labor. They're charging rent on property they own. Copyright law is similar to tangible property law in the sense that people make investments based on how well protected they think those investment are likely to be. No reasonable protection, no reasonable investment. To the extent that the law is enforceable, people making these investments fully — and reasonably — expect it to be enforced.
- adamlett 13y ago
  Copyright is what the word implies: The (exclusive) right to make copies of something. No more, no less. Whether someone can turn that into something you can make money doing, is not and should not be concern for the law. People make works all the time that they can't sell. Does copyright give them the right to expect to be paid anyway? If artists insist on grossly overpricing their work, does copyright protect them from consumers choosing not to buy?
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    There's obviously no right to get paid for copies that don't get made. And that's not what people are insisting on when they talk about their right to get paid for their work. What they're talking about are the copies that do get made without any payment in return. That the real bone of contention. And really, it's not even the copies that artists and publishers care about. What concerns them is the money legally owed but illegally withheld. See the problem? If you - personally - feel something is overpriced, leave it on the shelf. That's how you send signals in market economies. I mean, do you honestly think your rights are being infringed upon if someone refuses to sell you something at a price you're unable or unwilling to pay? As an aside, copyright protection isn't limited to the making of copies. It also covers the creation of derivative works (i.e. adaptations) and the sale and / or distribution of copies and derivatives. FYI.