I never called it a “criminal underground”. Does the fact that many of us break the law in question mean the law itself should be eliminated? Absolutely not.

When the majority of otherwise law-abiding citizens habitually break a law, then it’s a good bet that the law should be changed or repealed. Marijuana laws are a pretty good example. (I don’t smoke weed, in case that makes any difference.) For one thing, you’re criminalizing the populace, which is a recipe for totalitarianism. For another thing, it means the law is unenforcable (or only selectively enforcable, which is probably worse).

No one has provided a single compelling argument in any debate I have participated in as to why the rights of consumers should trump the rights of those actually producing the art. My time, My efforts. my creativity. My rights. You want to take my rights away? No. Not acceptable. Never.

Legally speaking, artists only have those rights because the public grants them (through their Congressional representatives). That’s a fundamental principle of copyright, upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court, and explicitly written into the Constitution. If you don’t like it, then you don’t like copyright. I’m sure I’ve quoted Jefferson at you before, but I’m going to do it again, because he phrases it so well:

“Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody.”

Philosophically speaking, artists have exclusive right to their art only as long as they don’t publish it. Once it has been released to the public, then in a very fundamental way, it belongs to the public as much as it belongs to artists. Once you sell it to them (or give it away), then it’s their property, just as ideas in their heads are their property. Copyright, of course, takes some of those rights away from them, which is why it’s called a “negative right” – it’s the right to prevent others from doing what they naturally would be allowed to do.

Artistically speaking, your viewpoint runs counter to the very purpose of art itself. Art was never supposed to “belong” to the artist; it’s supposed to belong to the world (or “to the ages,” as they say). Art is supposed to be available to everyone; that’s the fundamental principle behind art galleries and libraries. Furthermore, art is not a fixed object that is hurled into the void; it is one side of a dialogue between the artist and the audience, collectively and (to an audience member) individually. It is the most successful when the audience is also composed of artists, who then take up that art and run with it themselves, turning it from a sole creation into a movement.

None of this is to suggest that artists shouldn’t be compensated. But that’s an economic argument. Economically speaking, consumers ultimately set the price of a product; it’s economically unfeasible to sell public goods; and nobody has a “right” to an income, only a “right” to convince consumers to pay them.

Finally, let’s speak about fairness. You said earlier that “Society has a responsibility to cultivate culture.” You’re right, that responsibility is to cultivate culture. Culture, by definition, is a matter of public domain. In other words, society has this “responsibility” only because it benefits. If not, then it holds no responsibility to you, me, or anyone else who seeks to lock up that culture. Why would it have a responsibility to cultivate its own destruction?

If none of those arguments are compelling, then I have a sneaking suspicion that no argument could be compelling to you.

And all of those artists signed a contract. They made that choice. There’s no debate to be had here.

When child labor was allowed, children and their parents also made the choice for them to work in factories. But nobody is suggesting that child labor isn’t exploitation.

The majority of artists do not make that choice. It’s not even a choice offered to them.

For many many years, the artists who did not make that choice were essentially blackballed. If your only choices are to take the deal or starve, then I’d say “exploitation” is not a terrible word to use. Yes, that’s a problem with bad deals and bad industries – but copyright didn’t prevent it.

If you want to change this – and I wouldn’t blame you – then you should write your Congressman to change copyright laws. For example, get rid of “assigning” rights, and only allow “licensing” of rights. The Featured Artists Coalition has some good suggestions (and also some bad ones, in my opinion). They’re musicians, but many of their ideas apply to any artistic industry.

Most artists are not in bed with a corporation.

“In bed with” implies collusion. That’s not what I meant. Actually, by saying that artists are responsible for their bad deals, you seem to be implying this more than me.

Sales carry terms. There is nothing wrong with that, particularly when those terms help protect the rights of those who offer the service or goods in the first place.

But those terms must have limitations. Otherwise, consumers would have absolutely no rights whatsoever. The rights of the consumer always have to be balanced against the demands of those who offer the goods and services.

Especially when those demands are enforced by the government.

But this is something people want, rather than something people must have for survival.

You could turn this around, of course. Making money from art is something you “want” too. If you can’t, then the world can always use more ditch diggers.

I write a book. Corporation takes interest in it. They have to go through me if they want a piece. Without the protection offered by copyright. They take my work and profit from it at will, using their vast resources to push me out of competing buisness.

More likely scenario: they dictate the contract’s terms, and if you don’t play ball they walk. (Heaven help you if you signed a “deal memo,” because then you can’t publish with anyone else until you work out a contract.) Then they sign your competitor, or someone who writes with the same style. They profit at will, and you can’t compete anyway. See e.g. labels signing white versions of black rock-n-rollers in the 50’s and 60’s.

But if they did take your work and profit from it, then it’s also possible this would benefit you indirectly. For one thing, it would promote your other works. And, the public backlash would drive consumers to your business instead. (This is how Techdirt works, apparently.)

There’s also this issue: would this result in that work getting to the public more efficiently? If the public gains, then according to copyright’s constitutional purpose, I’m afraid we must consider it beneficial, even if your business fails.

But having said all that, this is one effect of copyright that I do support, and the public would probably agree. Changing copyright laws to emphasise the defense of artists against corporations would be a good thing in my book. But as it stands now, copyright benefits corporations and publishers far more than it benefits artists.

I also distinguish between commercial exploitation and peer-to-peer infringement. The law does not (anymore), which is one of the reasons I don’t like it.

Some of my closest friends have done just fine without a major label.

I also know a ton of people who are musicians and people who run labels themselves. This might be my crowd, but most are doing about as good as they were before file sharing came on the scene. With indie music, fans purchase things largely because they want to support the artist, not because copyright forces them to.

Also: Mike may be prickly as a porcupine, but as of your last post, you were not really being that civil either. So, let’s all just relax and have a nice cup of tea.