3 ms·

You're just wrong. Off the top of my head Dostoevsky and Sam Johnson and Charles Dickens all openly wrote for the money. I don't doubt that almost all authors

You're just wrong. Off the top of my head Dostoevsky and Sam Johnson and Charles Dickens all openly wrote for the money. I don't doubt that almost all authors do, without being so open about it.

jgrahamc 17y ago
Hemingway
ThomPete 17y ago
Then they are business people and and their products should be judged by the commodity it is not by their wish to make money.
sp332 17y ago
I didn't say they couldn't make money! Actually the opposite, I meant some artists could still make money without copyright. Copyright != making a living.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- mynameishere 17y ago
  I'm not going to spend a lot of time researching this, but I know Beethoven had a publisher for his sheet music, and I'm guessing that it was protected like anything else. Not the point. The business model back then was based around patronage, whether by the church or aristocrats. I'll also guess that the people who voted for the pirate party don't want a move in that direction.
- jgrahamc 17y ago
  The "Statute of Anne" (original establishment of something like copyright in British law) dates to 1709 and established exclusive rights on works for a period of IIRC 21 years. Bach died in 1750; Mozart was born in 1756; Beethoven was born in 1770.
  - req2 17y ago
    From the long title of the Statute of Anne, "Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies". In other words, the Statute of Anne protected publishers of books. Not musicians.
    - jgrahamc 17y ago
      At the time there was no way of recording music so it didn't protect reproduction of the music in a form you could listen to. But as the court case "Bach vs. Longman" established in 1777 that statute did cover sheet music which was how Bach made money. http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/ausgabe/%22uk_1777%22 http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/aus...
      - req2 17y ago
        So I want to link techdirt - http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090426/1837134647.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090426/1837134647.shtml for their (short) commentary on a (short) 1897 music piracy article from the NYTimes. (Direct link: http://www.bestactever.com/2009/04/26/the-long-war-music-piracy-in-1897-nytimes/ http://www.bestactever.com/2009/04/26/the-long-war-music-pir...) http://www.newstatesman.com/music/2008/12/public-century-composers http://www.newstatesman.com/music/2008/12/public-century-com... gives a better overview of how the problems of music today are the same problems as back then. This includes a deal of piracy and stealing of works, and also mentions the other problems copyright introduces, such as the dilution of quality. Dickens and Haydn could have created greater works if they weren't focused on public patronage for money.
  - nopassrecover 17y ago
    Who is to say we wouldn't also include two or more other great composers in that list if there hadn't been a 21 year statute. Sometimes a set of factors just seem to line up perfectly to generate amazing ideas in the right people - it's why people independently come to the same conclusion or invent the same invention at the same moment in time. Copyright law minimises the benefits of these "golden ages". With longer periods of copyright law (in excess of lifetimes/generations) copyright law can simply destroy the potential value of society.
gaius 17y ago
It doesn't even matter if you're doing it for the money, at the end of the day you need money to eat, have a roof over your head, blah blah. I'm not sure society benefits if the only people who can create intellectual assets are independently wealthy dilletantes.
cabalamat 17y ago
If copyright was abolished tomorrow, it would still be possible for writers to getr paid to write. For example, they could write a book and only release it when donations to them have reached a certain level.

You're just wrong. Off the top of my head Dostoevsky and Sam Johnson and Charles Dickens all openly wrote for the money. I don't doubt that almost all authors do, without being so open about it.

jgrahamc 17y ago

Hemingway

ThomPete 17y ago

Then they are business people and and their products should be judged by the commodity it is not by their wish to make money.

sp332 17y ago

I didn't say they couldn't make money! Actually the opposite, I meant some artists could still make money without copyright. Copyright != making a living.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

mynameishere 17y ago
I'm not going to spend a lot of time researching this, but I know Beethoven had a publisher for his sheet music, and I'm guessing that it was protected like anything else. Not the point. The business model back then was based around patronage, whether by the church or aristocrats. I'll also guess that the people who voted for the pirate party don't want a move in that direction.
jgrahamc 17y ago
The "Statute of Anne" (original establishment of something like copyright in British law) dates to 1709 and established exclusive rights on works for a period of IIRC 21 years. Bach died in 1750; Mozart was born in 1756; Beethoven was born in 1770.
- req2 17y ago
  From the long title of the Statute of Anne, "Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies". In other words, the Statute of Anne protected publishers of books. Not musicians.
  - jgrahamc 17y ago
    At the time there was no way of recording music so it didn't protect reproduction of the music in a form you could listen to. But as the court case "Bach vs. Longman" established in 1777 that statute did cover sheet music which was how Bach made money. http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/ausgabe/%22uk_1777%22 http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/aus...
    - req2 17y ago
      So I want to link techdirt - http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090426/1837134647.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090426/1837134647.shtml for their (short) commentary on a (short) 1897 music piracy article from the NYTimes. (Direct link: http://www.bestactever.com/2009/04/26/the-long-war-music-piracy-in-1897-nytimes/ http://www.bestactever.com/2009/04/26/the-long-war-music-pir...) http://www.newstatesman.com/music/2008/12/public-century-composers http://www.newstatesman.com/music/2008/12/public-century-com... gives a better overview of how the problems of music today are the same problems as back then. This includes a deal of piracy and stealing of works, and also mentions the other problems copyright introduces, such as the dilution of quality. Dickens and Haydn could have created greater works if they weren't focused on public patronage for money.
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  Who is to say we wouldn't also include two or more other great composers in that list if there hadn't been a 21 year statute. Sometimes a set of factors just seem to line up perfectly to generate amazing ideas in the right people - it's why people independently come to the same conclusion or invent the same invention at the same moment in time. Copyright law minimises the benefits of these "golden ages". With longer periods of copyright law (in excess of lifetimes/generations) copyright law can simply destroy the potential value of society.

gaius 17y ago

It doesn't even matter if you're doing it for the money, at the end of the day you need money to eat, have a roof over your head, blah blah. I'm not sure society benefits if the only people who can create intellectual assets are independently wealthy dilletantes.

cabalamat 17y ago

If copyright was abolished tomorrow, it would still be possible for writers to getr paid to write. For example, they could write a book and only release it when donations to them have reached a certain level.