The poll options are a little broad. I feel that some sort of copyright is important, but the current laws do not serve the interest of the consumer or society in general. The creator needs to get reasonable compensation for their idea in general, but it also needs to be tempered with the possibility for additional derivative work to be created. The creeping extension of copyright over the years has been generally detrimental to this purpose.
I have no idea how to reform the system to be better, while still providing necessary protection, but one thing that occurs to me is that there should never be an ability to prevent something from being distributed. If a copyright holder fails to make a work reasonably available, they shouldn’t be allowed to go after others who are making it available. A book, movie, piece of music, etc shouldn’t become unavailable just because the copyright holder doesn’t want to make more of them. A creator of a work should have **some **control over how the work is used, but it shouldn’t extend to making it unavailable.
I have IP (visual art, and music. Both available online) and I support copyright, though not in its current form; which I believe to be unethical and antiquated.
Generally speaking, I think that not all IP is created or distributed equally and we should reflect that in our laws. Technology has made certain types of dissemination inevitable and the law should reflect that as well. Lastly, the current time lengths for protection are absurd, and should be completely re-tooled.
That’s why we need to differentiate between types of IP. Most reasonable people would agree that such material is private, and not intended for the public’s consumption.
Money and royalties aside. I disagree. It’s the artists, creators work. If I create a piece of work and if I want it to die off into obscurity that should be an artist’s prerogative, not anyone elses. From an artists perspective just because I created it, doesn’t mean you have a right to have access to it, until the end of time.
Take a great piece of art work for example, the Mona Lisa. With your logic, if the original was scanned illegally (canvas print) you should be able to hang it in your hallway.
If I stole your ideas, by which I assume you meant taking your IP, passing it off as my own, and sold it, it would of course be the same as stealing your car. The thread you linked to is not about stealing IP, it’s about infringing copyright. You need to learn the difference.
I’ll give you a clue. One harms the owner of the IP, the other doesn’t, and if their IP is actually of any value, benefits them.
If you don’t want your art accessible to the public, don’t make it accessible to the public, keep it locked up somewhere.
If you do make it accessible to the public, then you have the choice to offer it for sale, and potentially make some money from it, or not, and make no money from it. You have neither the power nor the right to withhold it.
Artist want everything in their favour, rather than a balance. All rights and no responsibilities, basically. Copyright should exist, and it’s purpose should be to ensure that any revenue created by someone’s art goes to them. It should not exist to prevent access to the art.
I will point out that everyone who is posting here has IP that they are choosing to give away for free, so anyone who voted that they don’t have IP is lying.
That doesn’t square well with the fact that the majority of art is available legally for free. For every band, novelist, photographer, programmer, or whatever selling their work there are tens or hundreds happily giving theirs away. People always have, and always will, create for free, for the enjoyment of creation and of seeing others enjoy their work.
Even if copyright laws as they currently stand became 100% enforceable, I could read, listen to music, watch films, play games, and enjoy any form of art I wanted without paying a penny.
That doesn’t, of course, mean I don’t pay for art, or that I wouldn’t in those circumstances.
And does that apply to the best? The absolute best? Who is the greatest novelist of the last century? You decide. Does he or she “create for free, for the enjoyment of creation?”
Greatest band of all time? You pick. I favor Pink Floyd, but I figure I’m in the minority in a big way there, so I’ll go with your choice. Does your choice for greatest band of all time play for free?
You like musicals? I do. Quite a bit. I think the greatest American musical of all time is Parade, which was written by a man named Jason Robert Brown. I’d be willing to accept Sweeney Todd as the greatest, though. Or any of several older musicals. Which of those were written for free?
Not a fan of musical theatre? That’s OK. How about classical music. Mozart? He wrote for free, right? Just for the the “enjoyment of creation.” The best of his output was made in his free time. Because creation at a Mozart level was quick and easily fit into the hours between his shifts at the fancy hat factory. Right?
Lots of art is available legally for free. The vast majority of it is crap, produced, as I said in the other thread, by hobbyists. Making something really great is difficult. It requires a lot of talent… but it also requires time and resources that someone who can’t get paid in exchange simply can’t afford to expend.
If you want to limit your artistic choices to mediocre garage bands, Star Wars fan fiction, and your cousin’s friend who is a really, really good writer and has a blog, then eliminate copyright. If you want people who have the time and ability to devote real time and craftsmanship to their art, then stop being such a cheapskate and pay them so that they can afford to eat food.
Many give it away for free (NOT the majority, I would say) - with the hope that this will create fans who will pay for it later.
Many will not give it away for free at all.
The fact remains that much art, perhaps the best art, wouldn’t exist without copyright protection.
And who the hell would invest money in making a film if they could not get any money back?
Music is cheap to make and distribute now though. Not so for films, or inventions, etc.
Then take my challenge from another thread - don’t consume any art, etc. that someone is currently charging money for under copyright protection, or did in the past and is now public domain. For one year. Declare your independence from copyright. Live in the world you desire. I challenge you.
Yes, I’d like to know where I can get all this amazing music and other art without copyright protection. Not just for free - since some artists give things away for free they want to charge for later in order to build a following, and other works enter the public domain after copyright expires - but stuff that the artist never once charged royalties for and likely never will. Where is this stuff?
I guess you missed the part where I said I do, and will continue to pay for art, then.
Your mention of Mozart is interesting, though, as I assume you’re aware that copyright wasn’t developed until after his time, and yet he still created - and got paid for creating. As do some of my favourite bands, who offer their work for free, and I’ve paid for anyway.
The alternative to the current unworkable copyright system isn’t a system where no-one creates, or where no-one gets paid for creating. What is likely to happen is a return to, at least to some extent, the older situation where people either create specific works to order, at an agreed price (most photographers do this currently), and live performance being the main way actors, musicians and poets make money. I know the idea that a sensitive artiste may have to actually work to earn money may sound horrific, but it is going to be necessary.
Do you have pubs or bars near you where bands play for free? I know several near me, and some (but not by any means all) of the bands I’ve seen have been as good as any professional musicians. I have plenty of friends who are amateur musicians for the fun of it, in many forms of music.
Big name bands like Pearl Jam and The Cowboy Junkies have many live concerts for free streaming, if not download, I’ve not checked recently, on their websites. There are thousands of bands offering albums for free on Bandcamp, some of which (again not all) is as good as any professional band.
The reason you’ve not seen this is, I assume, because you’ve not looked.
Look, most people who make music or write do so primarily because they love to do so. Getting paid for it is a bonus. One they are certainly entitled to if their work is good enough, and if it’s good enough I will pay for it.
Your problem seems to be that you expect me to pay for crap and be thankful for the opportunity.
Are you still failing to comprehend the point I’ve repeatedly made, that I do pay for art, willingly, and do so even when I can get it for free? Why do you think I want a world where art isn’t offered for sale?
What I want is a world where it’s recognised that freely copying art is not harmful to the artist, and in many cases benefits them. In that world, those who make art of value will receive payment to the value of the art, not the value of their advertising. Copyright should exist to ensure that only the artist, or someone of his choosing can profit from his work - you know, the original purpose of it.