4 ms·

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 t

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.

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.