Unless you also convert the entire world to communism so anyone who takes any time to get decent at any art can still eat (not that that’s likely to work either, as we have seen), then the world would undeniably be vastly inferior to this one. Creative works ni all teir forms should be financially rewarded more than other things, not less, and certainly not not at all. If you want to live in the Dark Ages, go find yourself some drab little corner of the world to live in and stay there.
You might as well be arguing that trying to enforce murder laws is impossible because everyone has easy access to pointy objects and people they don’t like.
Right, because the only way someone can develop their artistic talent is to devote 100% of their time to it. It’s not possible for any artist to improve and produce worthy material if they only work at it on a part-time basis. :rolleyes:
Why? Just because something is a ‘creative work’ doesn’t mean it’s any good as art (something Hollywood and the recording industry prove on a regular basis).
Most creative works are crap. Always has been that way, always will be. I suspect a world where more people were involved in creating (even if most of them were not doing so full-time) would actually produce more and better art than the current one (even if the price would be that we’d have to sift through a lot more crap to find the pearls). But that’s a bit of a thread hijack.
Gee, you don’t think there’s a wee bit of difference between copyright infringement and, you know, murder?
It’s EASY to make copies of music you want. It’s HARD to kill someone. People have a motive to want to make copies of music they like. They don’t have a motive to murder random strangers.
But yeah, if we were in a situation where people were randomly picking up pointy objects and killing random people on a whim, then our current law enforcement strategy against murder would be broken. Our current law enforcement depends on there not being very many murders. If teenagers were murdering hundreds of strangers anonymously and untraceably from their mom’s basements, then the law against murder would be unenforceable. That’s what unenforceable means, it means you can’t enforce the law.
This, plus the fact that as I mentioned before, there is still the possibility of artists being sponsored by groups of people/one wealthy person or corporation. Even if you say that can’t work because people are not that “altruistic”, the people who like the artists will still fund them through personal appearances. And also, people seem to have the opinion that the free market is inherently uncreative, which is just silly. I don’t see the positive claim that the other side is making in this argument. What is *your *alternative?
What I object to is the people calling for *shortening *the length of the copyright out of what seems to be a desire for artists to make less money from their work. If copyright is not working, the only reasonable alternative is to eliminate it completely.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
ETA: Dan Norder, in addition to what Lemur866 said, you’re forgetting the part where they can get away with it. If there is an abundance of pointy weapons and I stab someone, the police are still going to catch me and give me some pretty severe consequences.
There is something here that just does not ring true.
a- people want free stuff and are willing to ignore the law to get it because technological advances have enabled them to do it
b- because they are able to do this, they get on some soapbox and rail against the impracticality of the law, how hard it is to enforce the law and other such claims
c- they then say we need a new system
d- they criticize the defenders of the law saying you don’t have a better way to do it
here is my observation/question
e- since you obviously do not care what the law says about your ability to take what you want, what the hell do you care about getting a new law?
f- do you really want a new law which is going to fall hard on the ass of the violators or is that just a sham and what you really want is a law which simply gives you free stuff in your Brave New World of Technology?
I’m not going to answer directly into the biased nature of your question, but I think copyright and patent law should be taken off the books. Not a “new law” but a total removal of regulation.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
your refusal to answer straight forward questions speaks volumes.
you want your free stuff and the government is suppose to go along with your ideas?
fat chance.
I think the success of the iTunes store is pretty good evidence.
Copying song files for personal use is a different issue than performing songs. But even in that case, people can already perform another band’s songs without permission, they just have to pay a set fee. And cover bands have yet to take over the world. People go to see Coldplay singing Coldplay songs, not any old band that decides to play Coldplay songs.
People who want to support the artist can simply purchase their merchandise. People already buy albums on itunes despite being able to download it for free. People still buy CDs because of the ‘memento’ factor or being able to give it as a gift. And you can offer special extras with purchases as an added incentive. You could even make it a raffle - buy an album and get entered to win free concert tickets fora year.
I too would love to see the music industry be more mid level performance oriented.
+1
You’ll notice that none of the money the RIAA got for suing grandmas actually went to any of the artists whose intellectual property was supposedly stolen.
Obviously pure communism fails but so does pure capitalism. Real human nature is somewhere in between pure greed and charity. Some people will take what they want no matter what the obstacle. Some people will give selflessly to others even at their own expense. Most people lie in the middle.
I don’t think there’s any scenario where he would get $0 for the album. But even if he did, I doubt he would have put so much into his music if his only goal was to make one album and profit off that and stop playing.
There will always be rich and popular performers even if CDs stop making money entirely. I think the music industry will be fine. The better question is the TV and film industries which are not as amenable to live performance.
Plenty of that already.
From what I heard that had more to do with the quality of the files, and other oddities of the distribution. But even were that not true, you can’t gleam much off of a one time publicity stunt.
Including artists. Copyright laws were enacted not to benefit them, but to benefit the society that their works enrich, by offering them incentive. Artists have no more moral right to earn money off what they choose to do they anyone else does.
I don’t agree. The laws are about benefitting society more than benefitting the artist.
Who is saying we shouldn’t value artists? All people are arguing is the best method to so so.
Great analogy!
I don’t think PDFs will ever replace hard copies of books.
Speak for yourself. Maybe you just have a negative world view and are incapable of seeing anything outside of that lens. There are plenty of intelligent thinkers who are advocating for changes to the system that either have nothing to do with getting things for free, or in many many cases are actually advocating the change to benefit the artist. There are many aspects of the current system that are disadvantageous to the artist.
Please stop making baseless accusations. Advocating a change to the law does not indicate that you are a current lawbreaker. And the fact that a law is being widely broken is a valid reason to reexamine the law to determine if it’s a good thing or not, and said reexamination does not mean that you are a lawbreaker.
Again, speak for yourself. There are many reasons to change the law besides selfishness of the consumer. And the selfishness of the consumer or society at large is not somehow inherently an order of magnitude worse than the selfishness of the artist. I speak as a consumer, citizen, and artist.
The law was created to benefit society at large, not to protect the moral rights of artists.
By political will do you mean society at large, or government representatives bought by RIAA lobbyists? Two very different things. There is a very large and active political will to change the system in society. There is a small but very powerful and rich political will to keep the system or make it WORSE in the government/industry/lobbyist scene.
Are you going to spank me?
And we see how well that works.
You do realize that “benefit” is a positive thing right? Of course people should work towards whatever benefits themselves as long as it doesn’t interfere with other people’s persons or property.
No the key phrase is ‘intelligent and practical policy’.
Many people do care what the law says, which is why they want to change the law so it makes more sense. And there are many reasons to change it besides “getting stuff for free”, including benefits to the artist.
Some people also don’t care what the law says because it’s absurd, but they’d like to live in a world where they can respect the law because it does make sense.
The artists are getting free stuff from government.
How about this, I say that my own likeness belongs to me. My own appearance is copyrighted. You are not allowed to look at me without paying a fee. Obviously no one would go along with this unless the police are involved. It’s not a totally crazy idea. There are some tribes that believe that taking photographs diminishes someone’s power, and some that disallow idolatry of any kind.
Or what about this - the mere fact of experiencing anything makes a copy of that experience (memory) in your brain. Is this copyright violation, to remember something without paying for it? What if a pill were invented that gave everyone a photographic memory (this is a conceivable technology) - then fidelity of memory copies would be perfect. What if a device were invented so that we could share memories?
The current system is becoming more and more irrelevant in light of changes to technology and culture. One way or another, it will fail completely, if it hasn’t already.
from Jack DaVinci
Perhaps you could quote from several sources who cast votes or wrote the laws on copyright law to support this claim. Without support for this, your boat sinks.
and yet again since itwas so effective the first time
So again, please quote from the writers and backers of the original law so we can see it your entire premise is true or it is just you inventing motivation for people who have been dead for two centuries. But in two sentences you have changed your position. Above, the motivation of the lawmakers was to benefit society, NOT the artists. Now, in this quote, you are saying it was a balance of motivations with MORE intent given to society and LESS to the artist. Nice shift of your position in the blink of an eye.
All the rest of your ideas are just resentment that you were correctly indetified and called out. People hate when somebody cuts through all the intellectual BS and just names greed what it is. You are no different.
It’s right there in the Constitution itself:
"The Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution (1787) authorized copyright legislation: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
Note the purpose, to promote progress, not to protect artists; and the terms, limited times.
Please keep your snide comments to yourself.
See above.
Did you read what I actually wrote? Notice the first sentence refers to the original intent, and the second sentence refers to current intent (and of course current intent is corrupted somewhat by lobbyist propaganda).
You clearly don’t know me, and your assumptions are wrong. I purchase all of my music, not because it is the law, or because I’m afraid of consequences (there are rarely any), but because I personally want to support the artist.
What people hate is not cutting through BS, which is the opposite of what you are doing, but instead your arrogance in thinking you know everything and can determine someone’s motives based on some gross prejudice you have against people who advocate for copyright reform.
You can question my various arguments, they could be mistakes, but if you question what I say about my own self, and my what I know about my own motives, you are effectively calling me a liar.
Again, there are many reasons for copyright reform, including many that are to benefit the artist.
There’s no motive for reformers to go through all the work and trouble of reforming the system if their only motive is getting free shit. You can currently get all the free shit you want under the current system, there is no compelling reason for lazy greedy people to want to change the system.
This is my quick summary of the two sides of this debate:
Artist: “I’ll create some cool stuff and if you pay me I’ll let you use it”
Downloader: “NO! YOU DO WORK AND GIVE IT TO ME FOR FREE!”
Don’t get me wrong, I hate DRM, want fair use, etc., but I just can’t think of any logical reason why anyone should expect/demand that someone else does work and then gives it to them for free, it’s just isn’t logical.
Since nobody else has responded to this directly…
The whole point of the discussion is that the status quo already has changed and will continue to change as technology inevitably continues to develop, both in terms of how media is consumed and how copyright laws affect the relevant markets and consumer behavior. For all practical purposes, there is no status quo.
Personally, I don’t think copyright is doomed; you don’t need everyone to participate in the system, only enough to make it a feasible enterprise, and just the obvious step of simply bringing the convenience of compliance closer to that of noncompliance through services like iTunes has gone a long way. But why is it impossible to have a conversation about it without respondents hijacking it by painting everyone questioning copyright as morally confused lawbreakers? haymarketmartyr, do you really not understand how someone can simultaneously follow a law and doubt its general efficacy as a social tool? And haymarketmartyr’s condemnation of failure to answer questions is particularly hilarious following his refusal of the same and admission that he doesn’t actually have a thoughtful opinion on the subject.
People seem to be focussing on music. Software, movies and TV also have this issue. As do patents for that matter, almost everything is ‘copyable’ after all.
And the long term impact of that is obvious - if a way cant be found to make people pay for it, people wont make it any more or develop products, or there would at the very least be a drastic drop in what gets made, noone is going to make a 100 million dollar movie if only 10 people actually pay for it.
Its that simple really. Music just makes it a bit more obscure. Most of the arguments I see it are fundamentally arguments against capitalism and the basic concept of people making a profit from their product.
Otara
If that’s really what you think the two sides of the debate are, then you haven’t been listening. You yourself have just expressed an opinion that is neither of these.
Davinci
I have seen people try to bluff their way through their own BS before, but you elevate to a new artform. Your citing of the actual language in the Constitution does absolutely nothing to support your claim that the law was passed for the purposes you claim. Nothing at all.
You can’t possibly be serious. The law itself clearly includes its purpose; how can you claim that is not the case?
Because that’s not what it says. You and some other people who refuse to read it for content are trying to say it’s not to promote artists but only society, when the Constitution is clear that only by promoting artists that the arts in society are advanced and that stifling artists would be hurting society.
The people against copyrights just refuse to understand what even the basic principles behind it are. And all the self-justification pseudo-intellectual claptrap they come up with is just a way to try to justify taking what isn’t theirs.
I can’t believe the arguments people are seriously trying to use here. They don’t catch everyone who murders anyone either, and we can certainly catch enough copyright infringer and prosecute them enough so that other people get the hint that they can’t get away with it. When copyright violators are identified, haul them off to jail. Make an example out of them, and others will either fall in line or get the punishment they so richly deserve for taking what doesn’t belong to them for no other reason that they are greedy and don’t care about other people’s rights. It’s one of the core concepts of any criminal justice system, and we’ve not been applying it like we need to. All the people who feel entitled to other people’s stuff for free can whine all they want, but people who care about the whole range of artistic endeavor know that intellectual property is an essential part of any society that made it past the stone age.
When I say “the debate”, I really mean “the debate with those that think they should be able to download content for free”. I don’t like DRM, I don’t like the DMCA, I want fair use and I think copyrights should have reasonable limits (20 years).
But there are many in the group of people I was referring to (the “they weren’t going to get any money from me anyway” people, and the “information is free” people).