3 ms·

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

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.
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      It is? Maybe we've never spent much time setting up any other system is because the system as it currently stands is working for the majority and they see no need to seek out another system. Also yes a large body of small time artists have to work other jobs to pay their rent, so many use copyright to try and secure income. I'm not sure how this is a bad thing. Just because you can easily subvert the system due to mp3's and fat bandwidth doesn't mean it should somehow now be legal, copyright is moot, and we tell every artist to "deal with it."
    - alexqgb 13y ago
      Actually, the amount of creative work in any medium that existed before the Enlightenment era is pretty thin relative to what came after. And it's not even a drop in the bucked compared to the explosion of material that followed the industrial revolutions on general and the modification of copyrights to make them transferable in particular. This legal innovation became the bedrock for the massively collaborative forms of media that went on to define the 20th century (newspapers, encyclopedias, literary anthologies, films, broadcasts, video games to name the biggest). Also, the point of copyright is to resolve a very specific problem, which is reconciling the high capital costs of content creation with the low marginal cost of duplication. Of course, none of the people who casually and dismissively say "just figure out a different model" will be ever be clear about exactly what problem needs solving. That's because acknowledging the mathematically inevitable failures awaiting any endevor with high R&D costs and low manufacturing and distribution costs make the logic of copyright clear. Either we create legal protections for the business or let it die. Given the extraordinary value offered by intangible goods, advanced economies have made the smart choice of creating legal protections in case where markets left to themselves would leave many of our best and brightest high and dry.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- alexqgb 13y ago
  Actually, there was widespread recognition of the need for a more robust scientific culture, given the unnerving advances being made in France, and fear for what that might lead to in terms of military advantage. So it's wrong to say it was only ever about lobbyist and money. The time was ripe for intellectual liberalization, which was something the House of Common actually did care about.
baddox 13y ago
> If it is so detrimental why hasn't it been replaced with something better? That's a ridiculous argument, which is clear if you apply it to other detrimental things like wars, murder, and disease.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  Uh, that was a rhetorical question. Intelligent readers can see that he's saying copyright, as a social institution, isn't actually the travesty some make it out to be. Intelligent people also recognize that "detrimental" is a pretty broad category, and that you can't necessarily make an apples to apples comparison between two things simply because they're both detrimental. Copyright is a legal and social institution. Wars, murder, and disease are not. Neither are earthquakes for that matter, or volcano eruptions. Detrimental as they may be, they're hardly things we can simply legislate out of existence (even I that's exactly what one of the Carolinas is trying to do in response to rising sea levels). If you want to make a proper apple to apples comparison, pick something that is, at least, remotely analogous. Slavery, for instance, or the poll tax. Just make sure it's something people can actually legislate one way or the other, and not something that is obviously beyond the reach of the law.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    Come on, I'm sure you can be more condescending. I also like how you first imply that social institutions cannot be travesties, then you give an example of a social institution that is a travesty.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - alexqgb 13y ago
      I was actually throwing you a bone. By drawing your attention to institutions that were obviously bad (and which were duely changed) I gave you a clue about how you could have been smarter in your response. Which is not to say that copyright represent injustices similar to either of these institutions. But at least you'd be saying something only halfway stupid instead of something completely stupid.

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.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    It is? Maybe we've never spent much time setting up any other system is because the system as it currently stands is working for the majority and they see no need to seek out another system. Also yes a large body of small time artists have to work other jobs to pay their rent, so many use copyright to try and secure income. I'm not sure how this is a bad thing. Just because you can easily subvert the system due to mp3's and fat bandwidth doesn't mean it should somehow now be legal, copyright is moot, and we tell every artist to "deal with it."
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    Actually, the amount of creative work in any medium that existed before the Enlightenment era is pretty thin relative to what came after. And it's not even a drop in the bucked compared to the explosion of material that followed the industrial revolutions on general and the modification of copyrights to make them transferable in particular. This legal innovation became the bedrock for the massively collaborative forms of media that went on to define the 20th century (newspapers, encyclopedias, literary anthologies, films, broadcasts, video games to name the biggest). Also, the point of copyright is to resolve a very specific problem, which is reconciling the high capital costs of content creation with the low marginal cost of duplication. Of course, none of the people who casually and dismissively say "just figure out a different model" will be ever be clear about exactly what problem needs solving. That's because acknowledging the mathematically inevitable failures awaiting any endevor with high R&D costs and low manufacturing and distribution costs make the logic of copyright clear. Either we create legal protections for the business or let it die. Given the extraordinary value offered by intangible goods, advanced economies have made the smart choice of creating legal protections in case where markets left to themselves would leave many of our best and brightest high and dry.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
alexqgb 13y ago
Actually, there was widespread recognition of the need for a more robust scientific culture, given the unnerving advances being made in France, and fear for what that might lead to in terms of military advantage. So it's wrong to say it was only ever about lobbyist and money. The time was ripe for intellectual liberalization, which was something the House of Common actually did care about.

baddox 13y ago

> If it is so detrimental why hasn't it been replaced with something better? That's a ridiculous argument, which is clear if you apply it to other detrimental things like wars, murder, and disease.

alexqgb 13y ago
Uh, that was a rhetorical question. Intelligent readers can see that he's saying copyright, as a social institution, isn't actually the travesty some make it out to be. Intelligent people also recognize that "detrimental" is a pretty broad category, and that you can't necessarily make an apples to apples comparison between two things simply because they're both detrimental. Copyright is a legal and social institution. Wars, murder, and disease are not. Neither are earthquakes for that matter, or volcano eruptions. Detrimental as they may be, they're hardly things we can simply legislate out of existence (even I that's exactly what one of the Carolinas is trying to do in response to rising sea levels). If you want to make a proper apple to apples comparison, pick something that is, at least, remotely analogous. Slavery, for instance, or the poll tax. Just make sure it's something people can actually legislate one way or the other, and not something that is obviously beyond the reach of the law.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  Come on, I'm sure you can be more condescending. I also like how you first imply that social institutions cannot be travesties, then you give an example of a social institution that is a travesty.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    I was actually throwing you a bone. By drawing your attention to institutions that were obviously bad (and which were duely changed) I gave you a clue about how you could have been smarter in your response. Which is not to say that copyright represent injustices similar to either of these institutions. But at least you'd be saying something only halfway stupid instead of something completely stupid.