5 ms·

>In his world, the creators of things starve. How so? The entirety of human history has shown us that we create no matter what. Art, music, tools, stories, tec

by deveac 11y ago

>In his world, the creators of things starve. How so? The entirety of human history has shown us that we create no matter what. Art, music, tools, stories, technology, etc. Creators have been making (and eating) for eons, well before modern IP laws. Look at the patron model, or commission based production, used for centuries. Or look at creation during leisure time for leisure (and its close modern cousin, large portions of the App Store). The absence of strong, modern IP laws has never meant (and never will) "creators of things starve". It may mean varying levels of overall creation, but it gets hard to quantify what that would mean, especially when many components of our current strong IP laws work against and damage creation of IP. >Stallman can ignore this side of the equation because he is a tenured academic. You kind of lost me with this attack on him. This is just a lazy cop-out that gets you out of considering the counterargument on its points and merits. You're not debating his argument, you're attacking his character. Incidentally though, he is getting paid, and he is using the ancient patron model which is entirely consistent with his views.

alexqgb 11y ago
"Look at the patron model, or commission based production, used for centuries." Here's a better idea: look at the actual work produced under this model. With a few notable exceptions, it's an endless parade of flattering portraits of rich people, glorified depictions the wars they won, politically slanted historic fictions used to justify their authority, and scenes from the religious stories they used to instill terror and obedience in the people they dominated ruthlessly. In other words, if you actually understood what you were talking about, you'd know that art produced under the model you describe existed - above all - to project and protect the power of the people who paid for it. The beauty of the copyright systems is that it provided the first real break from a brutal and largely impoverished world in which a tiny handful of rich, powerful individuals (and the institutions they controlled) maintained exclusive control over what did and didn't get made. Seriously, what else have you got? A compelling case for a return to the divine right of kings? Maybe you could defend the Church's Index of Banned Books while you're at it? Or remind us why burning witches was maybe a good thing after all? Protip, dude: don't use history to support your arguments if you don't know the first thing about the history you're citing. The system defined by contemporary IP law is far from perfect, but the idea that it's worse that what it replaced is completely insane. Further progress means adapting IP law to the realities of the 21st Century, not saying "Screw it, let's just revert to what worked for the ruling class in 16th."
- chebucto 11y ago
  Your post was rude, misrepresented GP's argument, and did not contradict any assertion made in GP's post. GP correctly argued that artists have always created, whether or not they were granted rights under a system of copyright law. He did not focus on or advocate a return to the system of artist patronage from the 16th century.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- deveac 11y ago
  >Here's a better idea: look at the actual work produced under this model. With a few notable exceptions, it's an endless parade of flattering portraits of rich people, glorified depictions the wars they won, politically slanted historic fictions used to justify their authority, and scenes from the religious stories they used to instill terror and obedience in the people they dominated ruthlessly.... The historical art and creation of our race is so much more than that, and always has been. Come on. You know this. I'd wager that the vast majority of music, art, and technological process and creation for our species has not been for pay in service of the groups you described. To think that art has historically been created solely for the rich is rather absurd. It simply isn't true. From the first known cave paintings, to the blues, to free software, this has always happened and always will, regardless if the creator is getting paid by a customer (rich or poor), and organization, her community as a whole, or not paid at all. >Seriously, what else have you got? A compelling case for a return to the divine right of kings? Maybe you could defend the Church's Index of Banned Books while you're at it? Or remind us why burning witches was maybe a good thing after all? Woah. Ok, I'm out. I see what I'm dealing with now. Don't need a "protip" from this type of derailing commenter. Good day.
  - alexqgb 11y ago
    "I'd wager that the vast majority of music, art, and technological process and creation for our species has not been for pay in service of the groups you described." You'd win, but not for the reasons you imagine. You'd win because the vast majority of everything created by humans has been produced in the last century - and most of that has happened in countries with relatively strong democratic governance. "To think that art has historically been created solely for the rich is rather absurd. It simply isn't true." You're asserting this without any evidence, and doing do in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. "From the first known cave paintings, to the blues, to free software..." Whoa, hold up, there's a HUGE gap between your first and second examples, and specifically, a gap where the evidence you're unable to cite should be. Given the millennia-spanning history of civilization, expression that is legally protected from government interference is a very recent development, and even now, it's not one that's enjoyed worldwide. From ancient Sumer forward, you'll find that pretty much everything of note was created and controlled by the elite. And if not directly controlled, then certainly permitted only with their approval. Between the guilds that dominated production and the religious authorities who sanctioned their output, the power of art has - until very recently - been kept on a very short leash. To a degree, I see how this validates your point in that it speaks to a large (and largely suppressed) desire to produce work that goes beyond the range of official sanction. And that's true of both work that gets supported in return for toeing a party line, and of work that gets banned for crossing it. But the desire to produce work is not the same as producing actual work. More powerful forms of creativity that went beyond folk art (largely restricted to song and dance) require advanced study and formal training, which absolutely and invariably took place under the watchful eye of the ruling class. Near-exclusive reliance on patronage not only provided a means for rewarding the useful and the loyal, it also provided a reliable means for starving the disloyal and disruptive. And I wasn't being flip by associating patronage with systems like the index of banned books and the divine right of kings. You can dismiss the broader context in which patronage thrived if you like, but that's no way to gain a comprehensive and accurate view of the subject. Again, IP laws have never been perfect. But to the extent that they encapsulate the promise and power of democracy, they are tremendously instrumental in the explosion of human creativity that democratically ruled societies have been responsible for. Sure, there's always been some level of creativity present in human societies. But not until creative expression gained a measure of legal and economic independence, and people gained a strong measure of control over their governments, did the creative potential of humanity really lift off. While IP laws are far from the only factor in this explosion, they're within the set of indispensable conditions that made the explosion possible in the first place. In the absence of a social contract that guarantees the physical well-being of every individual, regardless of the work they do (or don't) perform, IP laws provide an essential protection for the vast stores of materials and labor that go into the production of the most compelling works of art. Absent this protection (and general social support) the ability to control and advance the arts returns to the elite and their dependents. Invariably, this concentration of cultural power gets used to undermine the democratic institutions that exist to limit the concentration of political power in the hands of an otherwise unaccountable elite.
alexqgb 11y ago
It is absurd to compare university professorship - which revolves around concept of academic freedom and is backed up by the tenure system - with the arbitrary whims of patronage as it existed under, say, the Medici. Indeed, the whole point of tenure is to create working conditions that avoid the exceedingly well-known problems endemic to the patronage system.

by deveac 11y ago

alexqgb 11y ago

"Look at the patron model, or commission based production, used for centuries." Here's a better idea: look at the actual work produced under this model. With a few notable exceptions, it's an endless parade of flattering portraits of rich people, glorified depictions the wars they won, politically slanted historic fictions used to justify their authority, and scenes from the religious stories they used to instill terror and obedience in the people they dominated ruthlessly. In other words, if you actually understood what you were talking about, you'd know that art produced under the model you describe existed - above all - to project and protect the power of the people who paid for it. The beauty of the copyright systems is that it provided the first real break from a brutal and largely impoverished world in which a tiny handful of rich, powerful individuals (and the institutions they controlled) maintained exclusive control over what did and didn't get made. Seriously, what else have you got? A compelling case for a return to the divine right of kings? Maybe you could defend the Church's Index of Banned Books while you're at it? Or remind us why burning witches was maybe a good thing after all? Protip, dude: don't use history to support your arguments if you don't know the first thing about the history you're citing. The system defined by contemporary IP law is far from perfect, but the idea that it's worse that what it replaced is completely insane. Further progress means adapting IP law to the realities of the 21st Century, not saying "Screw it, let's just revert to what worked for the ruling class in 16th."

chebucto 11y ago
Your post was rude, misrepresented GP's argument, and did not contradict any assertion made in GP's post. GP correctly argued that artists have always created, whether or not they were granted rights under a system of copyright law. He did not focus on or advocate a return to the system of artist patronage from the 16th century.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
deveac 11y ago
>Here's a better idea: look at the actual work produced under this model. With a few notable exceptions, it's an endless parade of flattering portraits of rich people, glorified depictions the wars they won, politically slanted historic fictions used to justify their authority, and scenes from the religious stories they used to instill terror and obedience in the people they dominated ruthlessly.... The historical art and creation of our race is so much more than that, and always has been. Come on. You know this. I'd wager that the vast majority of music, art, and technological process and creation for our species has not been for pay in service of the groups you described. To think that art has historically been created solely for the rich is rather absurd. It simply isn't true. From the first known cave paintings, to the blues, to free software, this has always happened and always will, regardless if the creator is getting paid by a customer (rich or poor), and organization, her community as a whole, or not paid at all. >Seriously, what else have you got? A compelling case for a return to the divine right of kings? Maybe you could defend the Church's Index of Banned Books while you're at it? Or remind us why burning witches was maybe a good thing after all? Woah. Ok, I'm out. I see what I'm dealing with now. Don't need a "protip" from this type of derailing commenter. Good day.
- alexqgb 11y ago
  "I'd wager that the vast majority of music, art, and technological process and creation for our species has not been for pay in service of the groups you described." You'd win, but not for the reasons you imagine. You'd win because the vast majority of everything created by humans has been produced in the last century - and most of that has happened in countries with relatively strong democratic governance. "To think that art has historically been created solely for the rich is rather absurd. It simply isn't true." You're asserting this without any evidence, and doing do in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. "From the first known cave paintings, to the blues, to free software..." Whoa, hold up, there's a HUGE gap between your first and second examples, and specifically, a gap where the evidence you're unable to cite should be. Given the millennia-spanning history of civilization, expression that is legally protected from government interference is a very recent development, and even now, it's not one that's enjoyed worldwide. From ancient Sumer forward, you'll find that pretty much everything of note was created and controlled by the elite. And if not directly controlled, then certainly permitted only with their approval. Between the guilds that dominated production and the religious authorities who sanctioned their output, the power of art has - until very recently - been kept on a very short leash. To a degree, I see how this validates your point in that it speaks to a large (and largely suppressed) desire to produce work that goes beyond the range of official sanction. And that's true of both work that gets supported in return for toeing a party line, and of work that gets banned for crossing it. But the desire to produce work is not the same as producing actual work. More powerful forms of creativity that went beyond folk art (largely restricted to song and dance) require advanced study and formal training, which absolutely and invariably took place under the watchful eye of the ruling class. Near-exclusive reliance on patronage not only provided a means for rewarding the useful and the loyal, it also provided a reliable means for starving the disloyal and disruptive. And I wasn't being flip by associating patronage with systems like the index of banned books and the divine right of kings. You can dismiss the broader context in which patronage thrived if you like, but that's no way to gain a comprehensive and accurate view of the subject. Again, IP laws have never been perfect. But to the extent that they encapsulate the promise and power of democracy, they are tremendously instrumental in the explosion of human creativity that democratically ruled societies have been responsible for. Sure, there's always been some level of creativity present in human societies. But not until creative expression gained a measure of legal and economic independence, and people gained a strong measure of control over their governments, did the creative potential of humanity really lift off. While IP laws are far from the only factor in this explosion, they're within the set of indispensable conditions that made the explosion possible in the first place. In the absence of a social contract that guarantees the physical well-being of every individual, regardless of the work they do (or don't) perform, IP laws provide an essential protection for the vast stores of materials and labor that go into the production of the most compelling works of art. Absent this protection (and general social support) the ability to control and advance the arts returns to the elite and their dependents. Invariably, this concentration of cultural power gets used to undermine the democratic institutions that exist to limit the concentration of political power in the hands of an otherwise unaccountable elite.

alexqgb 11y ago

It is absurd to compare university professorship - which revolves around concept of academic freedom and is backed up by the tenure system - with the arbitrary whims of patronage as it existed under, say, the Medici. Indeed, the whole point of tenure is to create working conditions that avoid the exceedingly well-known problems endemic to the patronage system.