5 ms·

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 pl

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.

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.