Would We Have Art Without Copyright Law?
from the legal-fictions dept
Stupid, right? But I hear this argument for copyright law all the time.
Filed Under: art, copyright, incentives
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- The Motion Picture Association Doesn’t Get To Decide Who The First Amendment Protects
- Court Rules For Paramount In Lawsuit Over 'Top Gun' Movies
- An Only Slightly Modest Proposal: If AI Companies Want More Content, They Should Fund Reporters, And Lots Of Them
- Hollywood Believes The Time Is Ripe To Bring Back SOPA
- How Copyright May Destroy Our Access To The World's Academic Knowledge
Comments on “Would We Have Art Without Copyright Law?”
Partially Subverted
Without tax law–
Oh, wait…
Re: Partially Subverted
“Without tax law–“
Money would not exist.
Re: Re: Partially Subverted
Yup – that one’s probably true – since money implies a central authority to issue it (if in the form of notes) or at least to guarantee the weight of precious metal (if in the form of coins) and that central authority needs funding to exist – hence taxes are inevitable.
To quote Matthew’s Gospel: ch 22
16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.
Re: Re: Re: Partially Subverted
In fact it seems likely that money was invented as a means of paying taxes.
Without money you can of course barter.
Also (maybe) now bitcoin enables the creation of money via crowdsourcing which is cheap enough that no funded central authority is necessary.
Re: Re: Re:2 Partially Subverted
there are no bitcoins in the bible. where’s your god now?
Re: Re: Re:3 Partially Subverted
By extension of the quotation I would argue that bitcoins should probably be rendered unto Bruce Schneier 😉
Re: Re: Re:2 Partially Subverted
“Without money you can of course barter.”
Yeah, but it’s more difficult, which is why money was invented in the first place. It allows me to buy something from somebody who doesn’t want what I have to trade, and vice-versa.
It also means I don’t have to carry cattle around to pay for my groceries. Just tuck a cow under one arm and pop into the local Quik-E-Mart for a cola.
And you thought that silver dollars were unwieldy!
Re: Re: Re:3 Partially Subverted
Silver and gold are of course (in the absence of a government issuing coins – and taxing) simnply a form of barter.
Money <=> taxes
Re: Re: Re:4 Partially Subverted
As I understand it, taxes were paid before money – each person had to give a portion of their goods or services. And during the dark ages, when most people didn’t have any cash, taxes were collected through labour. But I do agree that money has simplified things a great deal.
Re: Re: Re:5 Partially Subverted
That was not taxes – that was rent. The King owned all the land – and effectlively rented it to the Barons – who sub-let it to the peasants who actually worked it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Partially Subverted
Silver and gold are of course (in the absence of a government issuing coins – and taxing) simnply a form of barter.
Only if the silver and gold are put to some use, such as jewelry. If it’s just a medium of exchange and a store of value, then it’s money.
Re: Re: Re:5 Partially Subverted
If it’s just a medium of exchange and a store of value, then it’s money.
And someone will have to verify the weight and quality of the metal – and will want to be paid for doing it => taxes.
Re: Re: Re: Partially Subverted
21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s; and unto human beings, what?”
-Stanislaw J. Lec
Re: Re: Re:2 Partially Subverted
So Caesar wasn’t human?
Re: Re: Re:3 Partially Subverted
He was a salad.
Re: Re: Re:4 Partially Subverted
And a casino.
I would argue that all of these things would flourish without law holding them back… except for maybe land. Land is not going to do much of anything.
Re: Re:
Without real property law the concept of property would devolve into “Might makes right”.
Re: Re: Re:
I agree… if property law doesn’t exist, IMO freedom does not exist.
Re: Re: Re:
Might does make right in this society. Either you agree with the concept of property without needing laws, or the only reason you don’t violate someone else’s property is because the people with guns tell you not to. If the former, then I see no reason why removing property laws necessarily means that we would devolve to “might makes right”. If the latter, we are already there.
Re: Re:
But would Nina Paley have an apartment in New York if she actually had to pay for it herself?
Nope.
Re: Re: Re:
Your statement can neither be proved nor disproved. Logic fail.
Thanks for playing, would you like another try?
Re: Re: Re:
But would Nina Paley have an apartment in New York if she actually had to pay for it herself?
Since she does pay for it herself, so far as I know, the answer would be “yes.”
I can play this game too.
M: Without licensing…
E: I can’t eat for a day.
M: Without rights…
E: I’m not entitled to earn a living.
M: Without Creative Commons…
E: I don’t have a choice.
Stupid, right? But I hear this argument for copyright law all the time.
Re: I can play this game too.
“M: Without licensing…
E: I can’t eat for a day.”
Then try actually working to earn your keep, rather than sponging monopoly rents for works you completed years ago.
“M: Without rights…
E: I’m not entitled to earn a living.”
Sellers have to earn a living by marketing things people will actually buy. They are not entitled to earning a living. If you don’t like it, then sell your work to someone else under contract that requires them to pay you.
“M: Without Creative Commons…
E: I don’t have a choice.”
Err…I don’t even get what you’re driving at.
Tell me, Nina: Who is saying that “without copyright law, art would not exist”? It should be simple to point me to lots of people claiming this, since you “hear this argument for copyright law all the time.” Personally, I think it’s another strawman. Obviously art would exist without copyright law.
Ironically enough, I think we wouldn’t have all your art about copyright law if it weren’t for copyright law. One could argue that you depend on it as much, if not more, than other artists, given that it’s one of your primary, recurring themes.
Re: Re:
Dang, you trolled faster than me (see my post below). Check out the comment section in TD and possibly TorrentFreak and you’ll see lunatics claiming that without copyright creativity is doomed.
Been sleeping much lately?
Re: Re: Re:
Ninja, I think you missed it entirely (and so apparently has Nina). Perhaps just having a letter J in your name doesn’t make it any easier to understand.
Nobody says art won’t exist without copyright. What they do say is that without copyright, there may not be as much investment in art, there may not be simple and direct systems to reward artists for their efforts, and the potential is that in many cases, art that would have been created might not happen. Why? Because the artist who use to get paid (example to write a song) now has to spend their life performing their old songs to make a living, or worse, is working a 9 to 5 job to afford to live, because writing songs isn’t a paying business anymore.
Would there still be music being made? Sure. It’s just less and less likely to be a “profession” and more and more likely to be a “hobby”, something that is done after you have worked all day to make your living.
It’s the same with patents. Inventions would still happen, but there might not be as much financial incentive to work on new ideas. The risk / reward on inventing something new would no longer favor putting money on the table.
Would there still be inventions? Sure. It just is more likely to slide back to a guy in the basement tinkering (after working all day) rather than a team working to move forward.
The rest of her toon is equally pointless and ignorant, but that tends to be Nina’s style.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, there are plenty of people who claim that people would not create art without copyright law.
And not anything less than, or more complicated than that.
Maybe you have a different, much more reasonable viewpoint, but then this comic isn’t about you.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Again, sorry, but you are hearing wrong, and taking it the wrong way.
Without copyright, they wuold not create art. This is true. But it is not true that without copyright, there would be no art. It isn’t a two way piece of logic.
I sort of realized that this is why Nina (and many other people here, it seems) get so many things wrong. You hear things (or read them) the wrong way. You imply mirror logic that just does not make sense.
Without copyright, there might not be a “music industry”, but there would be plenty of people playing music.
So what the people say is true: Without copyright, they would not make art. But there would still be art being made, just not by them.
It’s too bad you (and Nina) just can’t seem to get it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I think you don’t get it. Maybe nobody has stood up and said “Without copyright, there will be absolutely zero art in the world” – but the rhetoric of copyright maximalists is absolutely riddled with this suggestion. It’s their way of tugging at the heartstrings. “We need copyright to protect artists – we need copyright to protect art! Without copyright there would be no incentive to create art!”
The message of the maximalists is clear. “Oppose copyright and you oppose art.” And that message is wrong.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Marcus, that is the problem – you are reading way too much into it, and in effect creating the strawman yourself.
There will still be art. There will still be music. There will still be fine movies like Sita.
The truth is if you oppose copyright, art doesn’t disappear. It just gets incrementally harder to justify investing in making it. You make it incrementally harder for people to have the time to make it. You make it incrementally harder for artists to get paid for their efforts under common rules.
Can you please cite me a single quote like the one you posted, or did you just make it up?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
” It just gets incrementally harder to justify investing in making it. “
No it doesn’t. People create without a legal need to all the time. Artists commission works. They do this without having to enforce copyrights on their consumers. Artists build portfolios of the art that they do to show their talent. Where does the copyright, the monopoly on distribution, act as a great incentive?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Nobody claims explicitly that art will disappear, but that is the hyperbole that staunch copyright supporters imply. Basically, they make the false claim that without copyright, the art business can’t prosper. Nobody will be able to make a living on art alone. They take it so far as to imply that art will not exist without copyright because there will no longer be paid professionals creating art. That’s just fear mongering and deception.
The problem isn’t in copyright being necessary, but that copyright allows a business model that can’t exist without it. The hierarchy of art publication is thus: Publishers fund artists whom create art. The publishers sell copies of that art. They use the revenue to pay investors and artists. This has only worked so far because publishers could exclude people from copying. It follows the warped logic that this is the only way to do this and anything else will not support a flourishing art industry, which is completely false.
Artists perform labor to create art. People want artists to create art. So, logic would dictate that artists should sell their labor to create art for people who want the art. The trick of it is how to make this labor-for-pay relationship work with a mass market of customers.
You have to realize that art is communication. It’s a conversation the artist has with his audience. Copyright basically acts to cut people out of the conversation, but we all know you can’t stop people from talking.
Art will happen, copyright or not. Professionals can and will make a living creating art if they figure out how to sell their scarce labor supply to a mass market. The thing that will not likely survive is the publisher middlemen taking a cut of the action by standing between the customers and the artist because the artist can, and always has been able to, sell directly to his audience.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
What I think is amazing is that you did it again. You took statements that do not say that art will stop if copyright disappears, and then went to try to explain why the statement is false.
Don’t you get it? Nobody is saying that. It’s the ultimate anti-copyright strawman. As you said yourself, copyright exists in a way that supports a certain business model. If copyright goes away (incredibly doubtful), that business model is no longer directly supported. When you take away the structures that allow artists to enter into contracts for their works, you take away the ability for the artists to get paid easily, or to sell their rights in standard ways.
It doesn’t stop art. Nobody has said that, except for the anti-copyright shills like Nina. Can you agree on that?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
” When you take away the structures that allow artists to enter into contracts for their works, you take away the ability for the artists to get paid easily, or to sell their rights in standard ways.”
I could swear Nina actually had a post about this here, where she goes on about how the law makes it even harder to allow art to be shown, but I can’t seem to find it.
There’s more litigation involved because you have to make sure to ask for permission to use pieces of work, or even to make copies in some cases. Honestly, and I say again, where does this incentive to control distribution actually help more artists make more money?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Jay, another strawman.
How does copyright stop someone from making and distributing new art? It does not, unless the new art is just the old art.
As for “where does this incentive to control distribution actually help more artists make more money?”, I would say that this could be a full semester course for some people on this site. Basically, copyright creates the framework under which a piece of art can be “owned”, “lent”, or “licensed”. Considering that the licensing of music (the actual performance or the written music, song, lyrics, whatever) is a signficant source of income, destroying that system would clearly hurt artists. But that is only an example.
Copyright defines the rights of the artist, and in doing so, created the ability for the artist to resell those rights, and systems are in place which allow for those rights to be sliced and licensed as needed, in a standard manner that everyone involved can understand.
The other choice? Ever time an artist wants to license music, they would have to get a lawyer, draw up a custom contract, and hire people to do collections for them for the contract.
I could go on. It’s safe to say that you have never created anything that needs a contract, otherwise you would understand the sort of structure that copyright brings to the table.
All this, however, still wanders away from the main point: Nobody has ever said “without copyright, there is no art”.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
“How does copyright stop someone from making and distributing new art?”
Stop right there.
Copyright has always been about making a mini-monopoly on distribution. Copyright is used to prevent anyone else from profiting on Mickey Mouse other than Disney. In the art realm, it’s used to prevent anyone else from making your artwork and putting it in say… France for example. The creation and distribution are as far apart as can be.
“Considering that the licensing of music (the actual performance or the written music, song, lyrics, whatever) is a signficant source of income, destroying that system would clearly hurt artists.”
And what others criticize is the shifting of those words. Somehow, I doubt you’ve taken into consideration the new ways to make business transactions in this day and age. Just because it’s licensed a certain way now, does not mean that is the way to do business in the future. Point being, newer artists seem to have a lot of success with other ways of making income. Crowdsourcing, personal appearances in front of fans along with other ways of doing business, have come up that unlock a lot more potential for artists. While copyright creates a framework, it’s not the only that can be created.
“Copyright defines the rights of the artist, and in doing so, created the ability for the artist to resell those rights, and systems are in place which allow for those rights to be sliced and licensed as needed, in a standard manner that everyone involved can understand.”
What’s amazing is that piracy (or rather copyright infringement) continues to show us that those infringements drive the industry far more than knowing what the law is.
“The other choice? Ever time an artist wants to license music, they would have to get a lawyer, draw up a custom contract, and hire people to do collections for them for the contract.”
Is that not what the music industry does now at the major labels? It seems that in order to know what your rights are, you have to be one of the Big guys.
If nothing else, you’re not saying anything that helps your argument. the main ones to force a copyright are the ones with the money to pay for it. The case against Andy Baio for pixelated art is proof positive of that. Further, there’s a time from ~10000 BC to 1709 AD that seems to disagree with you that copyright is needed for all financial motivation.
“It’s safe to say that you have never created anything that needs a contract, otherwise you would understand the sort of structure that copyright brings to the table.”
And you would be wrong. The reason I learned the DMCA and copyright law was because I was to be part of a band. At the time, I was the main one learning the law and the guys wanted to sign with a major label. When I looked at what was offered, I told them my feelings on it.
Sadly, my band split over personal differences. It is what it is. At the time, that was the main way to get through the industry. Make a name through a label, get out when the advance ran out. So I know how shady the contracts can get. I know how badly money changes friends. Copyright is a lot more insidious than you seem to think.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“It just gets incrementally harder to justify investing in making it. You make it incrementally harder for people to have the time to make it.”
Correction, it gets harder to invest and have the time for it if you persist in using an obsolete model that was reliant on living in denial. The thing they were in denial was, that they thought they could control copying. They have been thoroughly dispossessed of that illusion.
It might be harder at first, for those reliant on the old publishing industry. That will change over time, as necessity is the mother of innovation. People will find a way to make a living on art without it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Marcus, that is a strawman made up by the anti-copyright fighters. Give me a single source, any legit source, of someone saying “Oppose copyright and you oppose art.”
I dare you.
You won’t find it. Come on big boy, admit you are wrong for once.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
You mean Don Henley’s rant doesn’t satisfy that requirement?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Do you honestly not understand what the word “implication” means? The common thread that runs through all the maximalist arguments is the idea that you need copyright for there to be a healthy artistic culture in the world. I don’t see how you can try to deny that.
Go look up Bon Jovi’s rants. Or Don Henley. Or maybe UMG talking about how piracy KILLS musicians (in that piece, they claim “the music community is at risk, as is the unique culture of American music itself.”)
Then there’s that famous old campaign: “HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC.” Not “the music business”, not “recorded music revenue” – no, it’s killing MUSIC.
Or maybe look further back. Look at John Philip Souza claiming that phonographs were the beginning of a slippery slope that might one day lead to human beings forgetting how to sing.
Shall I go on, or are YOU prepared to man up and admit you’ve been playing dumb this whole time?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Heh, this is pretty funny. There are like 10 comments on this thread from the AC above daring everyone to cite an example and insisting that we are making it up. He was quite prolific this morning – but since I posted this list of examples, he has been completely absent.
I guess he doesn’t like it when people call his bluffs.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Marcus you jackass, some of us actually work for a living.
You examples are not very useful. Yes, the lack of copyright would kill those musical communities, but they would not stop art.
Care to try again big boy?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Funny, you didn’t seem to have much work to do earlier when you thought you were right. All that work only cropped up the very second I proved you wrong. And then it all disappeared the moment I called you out on your lack of response. How convenient!
Oh, and I did prove you wrong. I’m not sure what sort of goalpost-shifting trickery you are attempting here, but you asked for examples of people who claim that a lack of copyright actually threatens the continued creation of art. I supplied several, including the very blunt “HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC”
Sorry little boy (i’m assuming if i’m “big boy” that makes you “little boy” which is fitting given your affinity for tantrums – either that or you’re a prostitute trying get a trick), but this is what we call “checkmate”. All further rebuttal (read: desperate flailing) on your part will be seen as quite pathetic by everyone other than yourself (just a friendly warning, in case you want to save yourself more embarrassment, which I doubt)
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Marcus, all I can say is if you think me not answering you promptly is a sign you are right, then you are a bigger idiot than I ever imagined.
You didn’t prove me wrong, you know it.
Nina said “I hear this argument for copyright law all the time.”. I asked for a citation, and got none.
I got some stuff that has been misinterpreted, or some stuff where an individual case is being used to paint the rest of the universe, but alas, nobody arguing that without copyright there would be no art.
The goal posts didn’t move. It’s just your usual bullshit.
Now get back to your copyright supported job, learn a few things, and please: GROW UP.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
I asked for a citation, and got none.
Except for all the ones I gave you, all of which are exactly what you asked for, despite your denial of that fact. Once again, you were quite roundly proven wrong when I called your bluff, and now you are trying to save face. But it’s not working, and it’s not going to work, because you are so baldly idiotic and self-serving. So please: SHUT UP.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
No, you gave me quotes that are not citations at all. They are examples of what you are misunderstanding. It proves you to be an absolute freaking idiot.
I know why Mike lets you post articles here, you intentionally misunderstand stuff just to be funny.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
How many times to we have to repeat this?
We know there is no direct quote saying “without copyright there would be no art” in those words. We are talking about the very strong and clear implication of all pro-copyright rhetoric, and the emotional line that supporters use – sometimes subtly, often overtly – to sway people to their side.
If you cannot catch on to the fact that there is a very persistent “threat to art” message present, then you are really thick and really susceptible to manipulation (so it’s no wonder you’re so pro-IP).
Politicians must love you.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
Marcus, there is your problem. The “clear implication” is only clear in the heads of the anti-copyright supporters. There is no clear statement to this effect at all.
Over and over again, people in the music industry have shown situations where, without copyright, a certain song or certain album might not have come into being. “Without copyright, there would not have been art” – THIS ART.
There is always a threat to specific art, not “ART” in general. People will still strum their guitars, and people will still write songs. But collaborations that may have existed because of music licensing deals, example, may not occur. Without copyright (and the structures based on it) certain art may not have happened, and may not happen in the future.
The difference is night and day, unless you are trying hard not to see it.
What you (and Nina, and a few others here) have done is try to take a factual, truthful statement (backed up with plenty of exmaples) and try to turn it into some sort of bizarre absolute that nobody can defend.
It only goes to show how far the anti-copyright people will go to twist the honest words of people for their own gain.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
The statement “if there was no copyright, this particular thing would have been different” is meaningless, and that is very much NOT the point they are trying to make. The point they are trying to make is that every reduction in copyright is a threat to art. They are saying, quite clearly, that less copyright = less art. That is the consistent message in virtually every statement. Indeed that is the message you are injecting into every single comment on this thread with your constant derisive language – “people will still strum their guitars” – to suggest that only casual, amateur, flippant art would exist without copyright. And that is the message we disagree with.
That’s the funniest part: you yourself are doing it while you are trying to claim that nobody does it. Your comment here makes it very clear that you don’t think too highly of the sort of art that would exist without copyright – that it’s only art in the loosest sense, and lacks the value of what we have today. Well, that’s bullshit, and that’s the point we are all making. Next time you want a citation, try looking in the mirror.
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
Again Marcus, you fail. It’s the point you THINK they are trying to make, using your bias and your prejudices to come up with it. They never said it, plain and simple.
My comment isn’t desgined to be “derisive”, only to show that “art” (you know, the actual playing or music and creation of new songs) will go on regardless of copyright. It’s the point that makes Nina’s statement (and your repeated repeating of it) totally wrong. Forget everything else, at a basic level, no matter what, there is always art.
You are also reading into my comments things I am not saying. That is part of the problem in trying to discuss with you, you appear to be unable to take any comment at face value, and always go off to convince yourself of some bizarre hidden meaning. Art is art, like or not like is something of personal opinion, nothing more.
Can you please try to stick to facts rather than the obviously slanted, colored, and selective use of words that you are currently engaged in? It is seriously difficult to take you seriously when it appears that you are unable to read anything without applying your own incredible biases to every statement made.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
Art is hard!
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
Here’s what you said: ” aWhat they do say is that without copyright, there may not be as much investment in art, there may not be simple and direct systems to reward artists for their efforts, and the potential is that in many cases, art that would have been created might not happen. Why? Because the artist who use to get paid (example to write a song) now has to spend their life performing their old songs to make a living, or worse, is working a 9 to 5 job to afford to live, because writing songs isn’t a paying business anymore.”
To which I’ve responded by showing other platforms that artists can use. They don’t have to do exactly what you’re explaining, but they have alternatives.
The part in bold? That’s subjective on your part. Artists find other ways to finance their hobbies and talents and copyright does not do this. Seriously. This is what copyright does. It stops innovation. It’s a retroactive civil punishment for doing something new with older media.
Now you’re demanding proof and it’s been given. Or are you still denying reality?
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
Jay, please.
I am trying to explain to Marcus what they were talking about. It is my OPINION. Am I not allowed an opinion?
What Marcus is talking about (and what Nina is stating) is something as a fact, that is not a fact, it’s an opinion.
There have always been ways for musical artists to make money “outside the system”. Nobody debates that. In fact, that statement makes it clear that art will continue, with our without copyright, which makes Nina’s statement (and Marcus’s endless repeating) even more of a lie.
I asked for proof (didn’t demand anything), and no proof was given. Statements that were interpreted into a strawman were presented, but nobody has anything like “without copyright, art would no exist”.
I am still waiting if you want to try again.
As a side note, Marcus stopped answering. By his logic, he must know he is beaten and just ran away.
Re: Re: Re:18 Re:
Well, clearly it comes down to a matter of interpretation of the statements being made. Our (correct) interpretation versus your (naive) one. Oh well, everyone is entitled to their own interpretation.
As a side note, Marcus stopped answering. By his logic, he must know he is beaten and just ran away.
Oh, no, sorry for the confusion – that was never intended as “logic”, just another way to dig at you and get you more riled up because it’s quite fun to watch.
Re: Re: Re:19 Re:
Nope, your statement of fact “Without copyright there would be no art” isn’t an interpretation, it’s a lie. It’s a strawman, a bold face whopper that I cannot imagine anyone trying to defend.
Mine is only an opinion, what I think they are trying to say. I don’t claim to quote them, I don’t claim that they said something they did not say.
You did. Nina did. It’s called bullshit.
As for the rest of your logic, well, I call bullshit too. You seem to be full of it.
So, citation needed, or admit you are wrong.
Re: Re: Re:20 Re:
Once again, I already gave you a bunch of citations, and in MY opinion, they DO say what I claim they say.
Like I said, you are welcome to your interpretation. Clearly we have differing opinions on the meaning of the statements I give as examples. “HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC” seems pretty blunt and clear to me, so I happen to think your interpretation is a bit naive. Suit yourself.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
So according to you, when someone says “HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC” they do not actually mean “HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC”
Fascinating… please explain.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
Without one kind of art one would just have another. That’s the great thing about art!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
1) You’re wrong. There are people, there are many people, who argue that no art would exist without copyright law. Not that they would not make art, or that their art would not exist, but that no art would exist.
There are people, such as say, maybe a representative from GEMA, who have explicitly clarified their position to say that no art, whatsoever would exist.
2) I accept your argument that some people do in fact, only refer to themselves when they say they wouldn’t make art without copyright.
I) I then raise that with copyright, many people who would make, release, or publish art will not, or are prevented from doing so.
II) I’m not sure I believe them, about themselves. I think the grand majority would make art regardless. Maybe a small minority would altogether stop, but I doubt their existence. Copyright certainly has an impact, but the impact of creating more art than otherwise.
III) There arises the argument that without copyright, they could not make enough of a living to make art fulltime, and thus make more art with copyright. As it is, even without copyright, it is more than possible for artists to make a living. And without the tradition middlemen and the costs they entail, (and the costs they used to cover for the artist that no longer exist), we are seeing many such artists, (working without copyright protection or outright working despite copyright), crawling out of the woodwork.
IV) Copyright may, over all artists, in current form, hurt artists by reducing the potential audience for their works.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
1) where? [citation needed]
2) thanks
the rest, well, is a rant. have a nice day, but [citation needed]
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
He’s also missing the likelihood that many of the people who say, “without copyright, there would be no art,” are not actually artists who are referring to themselves, but rather middlemen who are trying to protect their obsolete business models and their place in the market. If there is no copyright, artists will still create and consumers will still pay for art in some fashion. The middlemen would be out of jobs or else would have to change their sources of revenue – essentially they would have to be service-providers to the artists rather than the dominant partner in one-sided agreements.
In a world without copyright, artists still have their creativity and artistic drive. They can still sell their works because fans will still want to support their favorite artists (as seen by people still buying things that are otherwise free, like NIN or Radiohead albums or Jonathan Coulton songs or Cory Doctorow’s writing). But in a world without copyright, middlemen lose their primary assets for extracting payments for decades on end. If they can’t maximize profits on works that are x number of years old, they don’t have the incentive to be in that business.
It is in the interests of the middlemen to convince consumers, artists, and politicians that art would not exist if the middlemen did not have copyright. They couch it in terms of the artists because they like for people to forget that they are not the artists, that they are not the creators of the works, that they have less to do with the creation of the works than they pretend. They are parasites that are trying to pretend they’re in a symbiotic relationship with artists.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Even the middlemen aren’t saying it.
That’s what makes this such a horrible, nasty strawman, and one that much of the Techdirt faithful have bought into.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Are you trying to say that without copyright laws art really would still exist??? Horrors!!!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Without copyright, there might not be a “music industry”, but there would be plenty of people playing music.
So what the people say is true: Without copyright, they would not make art. But there would still be art being made, just not by them.
There are plenty of artists who shun copyright (or enforcement thereof) that make a good living. I would think that any true artist wouldn’t say, “I have this great idea but nobody will pay me for it so I won’t create it.” If it is a great idea then you can bet someone will invest in it. This would most likely increase the quality of the output…making a clear distinction between what is good and what is crap. What you are saying is that if you claim to be a great artist then you are entitled to get paid.
As an aside, I understand that getting rid of copyright would put a lot of middle men and lawyers out of work…but what is the downside?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“but what is the downside?”
No more yachts and cocaine covered whores?
Won’t somebody please think of the luxury goods market!
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Yes, but they do it within the copyright universe. Radiohead famously sold their album for “whatever” and then quietly inked a distribution deal to make a living and actually get the album out to the masses (and to get it airplay).
Almost everything hinges on copyright being around, it hinges on the distribution, the exposure, and the nature of the systems built around copyright to get “organized exposure”. Even the “free” universe depends on it, because without exposure, who would know anyone from anyone else?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
You’re kidding, right? Radiohead’s In Rainbows album was widely available and playing on the radio before the release of the physical album. Then, realizing that some fans like the sentimentality of a physical album with art and all that they inked a distribution deal to make money selling a scarcity on top of what they made on the “pay what you want” income. They also toured to sellout crowds. You state that they inked the deal to make a living…has any member of Radiohead said that they would not have made music if there was no copyright? You guys keep asking for us to provide a quote supporting Nina’s point (which I did below). It’s only fair you provide a quote supporting your statement.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
How do you explain Bollywood?
Will original art still be worth more than copies?
Explosions in innovation occur when an idea is free and others can build on it.
Everything is a remix in the music world and yes the musicians should have to perform their entire life to continue to make a living.
How long does copyright last right now? Justify this.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I think the problem here is that you are trying to use logic to understand politics.
Or you are using a new form of trolling… the “logical troll”…. that is a scary new type: like when Skynet added real skin to the T-800s Terminators .
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Perhaps just having a letter J in your name doesn’t make it any easier to understand.”
What a douchebag remark.
“Because the artist who use to get paid (example to write a song) now has to spend their life performing their old songs to make a living, or worse, is working a 9 to 5 job to afford to live, because writing songs isn’t a paying business anymore.”
Awwww…poor little songwriter has to work for a living now… fucking boo hoo.. get a job you bum!
“It’s the same with patents. Inventions would still happen, but there might not be as much financial incentive to work on new ideas. The risk / reward on inventing something new would no longer favor putting money on the table. “
Then don’t do it! No one fucking cares if you get paid or not. Either people will buy your crap or they wont. If you invent something, and it takes 6 months for your competitors to copy it, then that’s all you should fucking get asshole! Get back on the drawing board and invent something else, and maybe you’ll get another 6 months to breast feed!
“The rest of her toon is equally pointless and ignorant, but that tends to be Nina’s style.”
Funny, I found your comment to be pointless and ignorant and Nina’s Cartoon most entertaining. But if your such an expert, lets see some of your work!
You, and the people like you, are fucking leaches on society. You think you should be paid forever for creating some stupid widget or song. Fuck you! You get as long as it takes some ass hole (Like you) to find a company in China or India to reproduce your junk and/or rip the DRM clean off of it, and stick it on some dark net/flea market.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You said: “Awwww…poor little songwriter has to work for a living now… fucking boo hoo.. get a job you bum!”
Me: no, poor little songwriter doesn’t have the time to write songs anymore, because nobody is paying for them. He has to get a real job. Guess who loses? Us. Opportunity cost, you know?
You said: “Either people will buy your crap or they wont. If you invent something, and it takes 6 months for your competitors to copy it, then that’s all you should fucking get asshole! “
Me: Forget 6 months. You produce it in a factory, your competitors pay the factory to “end run” some more productions for them, and they come to market before you. End of advantage.
You don’t think that companies like Foxconn or Flextronics won’t make it easy to run more of a product for a third party if there are no restrictions?
Oh wait, that would mean companies would take production in house to avoid the problem, raising the price of the new product to pay for all that needless duplication, pricing the new thing out of the consumer’s reach. Then that 6 months is spend with a great product nobody can afford. Then a competitor reverse engineers it (or just copies it) sends it to the knock off shops, and takes the market.
As for “let’s see some of your work!”, are you suggesting that only cartoonists are allowed to have an opinion of Nina’s work? How truly fricken lame that is!
Getting called a leach by a freetard is like a badge of honor. It’s also incredibly ironic, don’t you think?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Me: no, poor little songwriter doesn’t have the time to write songs anymore, because nobody is paying for them. He has to get a real job. Guess who loses? Us. Opportunity cost, you know?”
How is anything lost? If he won’t write songs, someone else will. Someone will find a way to fill the need and make money. Fuck em, let him starve.
“You don’t think that companies like Foxconn or Flextronics won’t make it easy to run more of a product for a third party if there are no restrictions?
“Oh wait, that would mean companies would take production in house to avoid the problem, raising the price of the new product to pay for all that needless duplication, pricing the new thing out of the consumer’s reach. Then that 6 months is spend with a great product nobody can afford. Then a competitor reverse engineers it (or just copies it) sends it to the knock off shops, and takes the market.”
Your such an asshole. You can’t honestly believe that companies would just pack up their toys and go home because the government won’t give them a monopoly? You would have us believe that companies would refuse to innovate because they couldn’t recoup their research, or production costs. I shed a tear I really do. But it’s all bullshit. Companies would become ultra efficient, feeding off of each others inventions and continually taking their products to the next level……….and do you want to know why Troll? Cause if they didn’t.. the asshole down the street with the widget reproducer would gladly do so.
“As for “let’s see some of your work!”, are you suggesting that only cartoonists are allowed to have an opinion of Nina’s work? How truly fricken lame that is!”
I am suggesting, quite clearly I think, that you are an asshole. Instead of stating your point of view, and engaging in honest debate, you resorted to insulting the author. I was simply hoping you would post a link to some of your work so I could repay the favor.
“Getting called a leach by a freetard is like a badge of honor. It’s also incredibly ironic, don’t you think?”
Almost as ironic as watching you IP idiots press your shiny disks with all the goodies that make it impossible for your paying customers to actually use them. While the freetards have the product, usually before the paying customers, without all the crap added.
I’m going to let your dumb ass in on a bit of a secret. For the most part, the freetards and the paying customers are one in the same.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars
http://gizmodo.com/5394593/its-still-true-music-pirates-buy-more-music
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Oh god, where to start? You come off as such an incredibly kool aid drunk freetard, it’s like trying to have an argument with an incontinent monkey. Shit everywhere, and none of it amounts to much.
The “pirates buy more” stuff has been debunked over and over again, even here on techdirt (if you read the comments). You could replace the word “pirates” with “music fans” in each case, and it would be true. Music fans buy more music than the average person. Average folks just don’t care that much, and buy music only occassionally. People who dedicate their lives to music are naturally more likely to buy music.
Imagine how much they would buy if they didn’t pirate it!
“I am suggesting, quite clearly I think, that you are an asshole. Instead of stating your point of view, and engaging in honest debate, you resorted to insulting the author. I was simply hoping you would post a link to some of your work so I could repay the favor.”
Holy crap, are you full of it. I disagree with Nina’s cartoon, I disagree with the premise, the opening statement has already been shown to be a strawman, and I think she is just being an anti-copyright shill for using it.
You, on the other hand, are an asshole because you came to attack me personally, and not to discuss the content of the cartoon. More monkey shit to clean up, I guess.
Don’t you want to spend more time posting on Torrent freak, anyway?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
You come off as a caught in the middle, I’ll do anything to protect the middleman free ride I’ve build around myself shill. You don’t create anything, you don’t make anything more valuable, your a fucking leach stuck between the artists, the people that consume it. The internet has made you a relic, a thing of the past, and it’s obvious you idiots are starting to realize it because of all the trolling you idiots do.
“Imagine how much they would buy if they didn’t pirate it!”
Bullshit, complete and total bullshit. Not a single fact to prove it. Your living in a middle man dreamworld.
“Holy crap, are you full of it. I disagree with Nina’s cartoon, I disagree with the premise, the opening statement has already been shown to be a strawman, and I think she is just being an anti-copyright shill for using it.”
Strawman? FUCKING PROVE IT YOU SHILL! No facts, all FUD… give us some proof!
“You, on the other hand, are an asshole because you came to attack me personally, and not to discuss the content of the cartoon. More monkey shit to clean up, I guess.”
Now on this, we can agree. I am an asshole. But unless your more of an idiot that I first suspected, you have to admit, it’s kinda of hard to “show up” and ” personally attack” an AC. I have no idea who you are, but what I do know is WHAT you are, and it fucking disgusts me to the core.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
It’s a strawman until someone brings proof that it isn’t.
A full thread, some of the best posters on techdirt, and not a single quote.
Strawman.
It’s up to you idiots to prove it isn’t. None of you seem to be able to do it.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
I just gave you several examples above. Enjoy! I look forward to seeing you twist and squirm in an attempt to make it sound like they don’t count somehow. Unless of course you just disappear, as seems to be your standard m.o. when people prove you wrong.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Bullshit! You said:
“the opening statement has already been shown to be a strawman, and I think she is just being an anti-copyright shill for using it”
Now back it up, and show me where it has “been shown to be a strawman”.
Your words not mine!
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“It’s a strawman until someone brings proof that it isn’t.”
Wow… I’ve never seen such obtuse thinking from someone that shills professionally.
Anyway, my post is above. I’m sure you’re going to say “that’s not how it works” or something to that effect. I just find it sad how you want to move what you qualify as success in regards to you, and not the artists.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
You just presented some intentionally narrow parameters to satisfy and use that as a cudgel to beat down any logical argument. Nobody said that “without copyright, there is no art” verbatim. The cartoon is a caricature that references the sentiment of copyright shills. Nobody claims that the exact words were said, just that it was overtly implied many times over by various copyright supporters. What people actually have said that without copyright, there will only be amateur art. This implies somehow that amateur art is inferior and we will be at a loss for not preserving copyright.
You’re just grasping for weak excuses to dismiss the cartoon as false while completely missing the barn sized message it just presented you. You’re either willfully ignorant or intentionally glossing it over because it undermines your entire argument.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
You remind me of the current GOP. Deliberately ignorant, unless it’s about hating the FotM minority/the Poor. Willing to misrepresent anything anyone says against you as persecution. And most of all, full of so much bullshit I could pop you and make millions of tonnes of feritliser a year.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Haha
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
HA HA HA… you dont actualy know how Foxconn and Flextronics works do you? I would say not, I have been to both HQ’s and continually go to the factories through out Asia, and if you think they are end-running you don’t understand business for crap….
another strawman burned for not existing in the real world…
Try again shill its fun knocking the air out of your FUD
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
IMHO the very best art throughout history has been created by so called ‘hobbyists’ who enjoy their creations and do it for fun rather then profit. The people who do art as a true profession generally just copy the hobbyists.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny, Rembrandt and Michelangelo made as living without copyright, and thru a most “simple and direct system to reward artists”…they sold their artwork!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Exactly, and da Vinci did it for FUN first and money second!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh wow, there may not be as much investment in art eh?
So what investment exactly are you talking about? I’m sure that government and community funding for the arts would continue as always, seeing as that’s usually not motivated by commercial concerns. Oh, but maybe lady Gaga will have to cut the budget for her shows by what – 10%? In other words by a million or so? What a sad sad day for the arts community!
In all honesty – I do see your point, but I don’t think it’s a good one. For one, you say that lack of copyright would turn artistic performances into a hobby rather than a profession, and that artists would only get paid for shows – well guess what? That’s just what’s involved in making your art into your profession! If you want to make millions of your artwork then you can’t expect to write a few songs and live off it for the rest of your life.. Let’s put these words into perspective – the big artists (and let’s face it – they’re the one’s who really benefit from the current copyright laws) make millions from each show!
Less draconian copyright laws will hardly hurt artists trying to make a living, but it will hurt those trying to make millions, and that’s why they (and the record labels) are trying their best to hold on to the existing laws.
And this doesn’t just apply to the music industry..
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Less investment in art is not necessarily a bad thing, art is not costly, generally the best art comes from people with a passion for the art, not the money. All we would lose really is overblown Hollywood style movies (no big loss) and record labels (YAY!) There is NO way to stop artists from creating art, some cultures have tried in vain to kill forms of art and even threat of death didn’t stop them, I’m pretty sure that money will not be an issue.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
wow… my trolling the troll post developed into… a monster troll!
@Anonymous Coward, Aug 30th, 2011 @ 7:32am
Marcus provided a few of our best examples here (home taping is killing music). You kept babling about the fact that it’s not an example of art and that’s when you failed, music is a form of art (hell, even ASCII in those nfos from TPB files is art) and the home taping thing clearly has one example of the entertainment/art industry saying that no copyright would mean no art. Home taping was a breach in the copyright monopoly much like file sharing is a breach on it today.
I’m just replying to kick your ‘dead corpse’ =D
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What they do say is that without copyright, there may not be as much investment in art, there may not be simple and direct systems to reward artists for their efforts, and the potential is that in many cases, art that would have been created might not happen.
And they may not have a single shred of evidence that this is the case.
Re: Re:
Who is saying that “without copyright law, art would not exist”?
Publishers, record labels and movie studios.
lol! Irony at its finest.
Trolling incoming in 3, 2, 1….
Troll Halitosis
So… without anti-suicide laws suicide would not exist?
Re: Troll Halitosis
suicide is only illegal if you do it wrong
Re: Re: Troll Halitosis
It used to be a hanging offence.
Art w/o copyright?
Sorry, but it’s a dumb question. I submit the cave paintings at Lascaux, and other sites, as evidence. Art existed before the concept of copyright or even law, for that matter. Copyright exists to protect the financial rewards associated with art, not the art itself. Copyright protects artists from the non-creative, greedy element, i.e. businesses.
Re: Art w/o copyright?
Copyright protects artists from the non-creative, greedy element, i.e. businesses.
Sorry, but that appears to be the most uninformed statement I have read in a very long time. Copyright is used almost exclusively by big businesses to turn artists into prostitutes wholly preventing them from reaping any rewards from their labor.
Re: Art w/o copyright?
“Copyright protects artists from the non-creative, greedy element, i.e. businesses.”
You’re wrong, copyright protects greedy business profits on the work of actual artists.
Re: Art w/o copyright?
That might be the original intent of copyright, but it certainly has no bearing on its current use.
So, if there are “plenty” people claiming there would be no art without copyright, it should be quite easy to link to some of their statements.
And please, don’t come up with some troll comments on facebook or something like that. This argument implies respectable people of the entertainment industry are saying this, so please quote them.
Thanks.
Re: Re:
Don’t hold your breath. There aren’t any quotes. This is the ultimate copyright basher strawman. Pulled into the light, it doesn’t stand up. Yet much of Techdirt hinges on it.
Re: Re: Re:
You mean like here?
http://www.mpaonline.org.uk/FAQ
Without copyright there would be no financial incentive for writers and composers to create…
Gee! Google is hard!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice quote, but please read it.
“Without copyright there would be no financial incentive for writers and composers to create…”
NO FINANCIAL INCENTIVE. That doesn’t say they won’t create, that doesn’t say others won’t create, it just says that there will be no financial incentive to create.
It’s a simple statement, absolutely and utterly misinterpreted and turned into a strawman.
Would you like to try again Dave? An actual quote that says “if there is no copyright, there will be no art”.
Hint: It doesn’t exist, except perhaps on bloggy things like Techdirt.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
See, again, there you go.
It argues that people should only create for money. That’s as much a strawman as the idea that art will go on and be better if copyirght didn’t exsist.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I get it it now. You’ve created an ironclad arguement! I guess if we have to frame it comepletely and utterly on your own terms, then you are right.
But we aren’t talking about an actual quote “there would be no art” M&E is a comic + commentary. It is not quoting anyone, but it is speaking to the implication.
The implication of my quote is that no one would create or there would be a lot less creation without copyright. That gets said all the freakin time! “No financial incentive to create.” 17,400,000 results from google. The implication is clear: Copyright is necessary to encourage creation. And that is what is wrong wrong wrong.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
See my comment below since it has been ignored by your ilk for a while now. I have popped popcorn and am awaiting a well informed response.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Haha
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
are you a fucking moron or just pretending to one?
the proof is in your fucking face all around and you sit and deny it, LALALLA I CANT HEAR YOU
no wonder nobody takes copyright morons seriously these days except other copyright morons…. not only are you all living under this big veil of denial & deceit purely for you own gain and convenience you like to act stupid and/or poor and helpless to convince people to give you your way
such disgusting creatures, you copytards
The real issue
The real issue is that with Real Estate Law nothing is being created. Creators of valuable works (not your crappy garage band that no one cares about besides your mom) like to have incentive. We need incentive unless everyone wants things to revert to crappy garage bands and movies shot on cell phone cameras.
Before a bunch of people come along and say that indie musicians that don’t give a crap about copyright are best, think about the top grossing artists from the last few years. How many of them were crappy indie bands that eschewed the current copyright system? How many of them didn’t use one of the major labels to get their career going, taking advantage of the current copyright law? No one cares about one crappy little opinion. The truth is that copyright law, as it stands, makes artists that people seek out and want to listen to. Call it dreck (I hate most of it), garbage, or whatever you like. The record companies launch them because of the way copyright works, and people listen to them because it is what they consider good.
Re: The real issue
no u
Re: The real issue
“Creators of valuable works (not your crappy garage band that no one cares about besides your mom) like to have incentive.”
Because every creator of valuable works started with awesome epic creations that they did for the money and thus there is no way a crappy garage band that no one cares about besides your mom would turn into a famous band of galactic proportions making tons of money. Simply because no1 ever does anything if it isn’t for money.
Your starting argument is so flawed that I didn’t bother to read the rest Mr Troll.
Zombies
Not having a law against zombies has obviously kept zombies from existing.
Please don’t pass a zombie law!
Did he just say, that?
To all the trolls that want some proof of someone in industry who said that there would not be art without copyright…I give you this nugget.
For trolls who like to ignore links here is an excerpt:
Rick Carnes, the head of the Songwriters Guild of America wrote a letter to the Financial Times, responding to Engstrom, but the letter is odd, poorly supported, flat-out wrong in some spots and seems to have totally ignored what Engstrom was actually saying. Let’s take a look:
Christian Engstrom of the Pirates party is absolutely correct in his assumption that Elvis’s music does not belong to him. It belongs to great songwriters like Otis Blackwell, who wrote so many of Elvis’s big hits such as “All shook up” and “Return to sender”, and who fought for years to protect and strengthen US copyright law. Without copyright, Mr Blackwell would never have been able to create that “common cultural heritage” that Mr Engstrom wants to think of as his own.
Re: Did he just say, that?
“Without copyright, Mr Blackwell would never have been able to create that “common cultural heritage” that Mr Engstrom wants to think of as his own”
Okay, now, think really, really hard here: Why?
Quite probably because Mr Blackwell would have been working as a day labourer, or working in a bank, or perhaps running a five and dime store rather than writing music, because he wouldn’t have had a way to turn his musical skills into money.
Mr Blackwell may still have written many songs in his life, for his own personal enjoyment. But without a copyright system, it is unlikely that he would have been doing it for a living, would he?
WHY is an incredibly powerful question, and without it, your quote is meaningless.
So again, there is still no quote that says “without copyright, there is no art” (use music or whatever you like in place of art), only that in this case, without copyright, Mr Blackwell would never have been in the position to create the works we all now enjoy.
So your nugget is mostly more proof that Nina’s statement is a massive strawman.
Re: Re: Did he just say, that?
To summarize: Without copyright we would have never had Elvis’ art. Which is art, right? No art. You are the one throwing out this ‘strawman’ which is just a detractor from the fact that what you believe…art isn’t art unless you get your cut of the profit from what you never created. Have you got that quote from Radiohead yet?
Re: Re: Re: Did he just say, that?
To summarize: Without copyright we MIGHT NEVER OF HAD had Elvis’ art, or maybe we would have had something else.
FTFY.
See, it isn’t that we wouldn’t have art, we just wouldn’t have THAT art. Maybe Elvis would have done jazz standards. Maybe he would have stayed in the military and been killed in battle. We don’t know.
What we do know is that without copyright, it is unlikely that Mr Blackwell would have had the time to write the songs that Elvis made famous. Nobody suggests “art would die”, just that this art would not have happened.
The difference is huge.
Re: Re: Re:2 Did he just say, that?
Oh no! Some kind of different art would have been made! The horror!
Re: Re: Re:2 Did he just say, that?
yeah and how about all the art that couldn’t happen, CAN’T happen because of copyright today?
i bet you that it outnumbers art that wouldn’t have been made with copyright 1000 to 1
Re: Re: Re:3 Did he just say, that?
**wouldn’t have been made withOUT copyright, i mean
Re: Re: Re:2 Did he just say, that?
wow, have we been actively trolling…
Nobody suggests “art would die”, just that this art would not have happened.
I can live without Justin Bieber if that’s the kind of art that would never have happened you are referring to.
“Initially a five-piece line-up of Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Stuart Sutcliffe (bass) and Pete Best (drums), they built their reputation playing clubs in Liverpool and Hamburg over a three-year period from 1960.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles
So, the BEATTLES, spent 3 years without a label before their manager got them into the business. Care to explain how did they make 3 years worth of art without relying on copyright? Oh, you can’t. “But… But… They signed with a big industry afterwards!” Sure, some boss saw potential in making it mainstream. But their talent was there already. Making it mainstream doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have composed shitloads of good songs. It means they might be less known as they were.
I believe without copyright we’d have more quality in art, generally speaking. More would do it for the love and less for the money. In the end it’s good.
Re: Re: Did he just say, that?
A couple of thing in your post that don’t make sense:
Quite probably because Mr Blackwell … wouldn’t have had a way to turn his musical skills into money.
I suppose what you conclude is that without copyright, musicians have no way to make money?
WHY is an incredibly powerful question, and without it, your quote is meaningless.
How so? You stated that no one was saying that art would not be created without copyright. He pointed out someone saying just that. Which you then dismiss as meaningless… And then say that art would not be created without copyright. That’s convienient. I’ll just quote you when I reply next time.
Re: Re: Re: Did he just say, that?
You said: “I suppose what you conclude is that without copyright, musicians have no way to make money? “
Me: My assumption is that we would not have been in a position where a song writer could write a song and license it out to a musician to record under a simple system. Copyright brings along licensing, and standardized licensing is one of the very powerful tools that allows for there to be song writer, performers, studio musicians and session players, producers, and the like all involved in the music, and not all having to be in the same place at the same time.
It is unlikely that Mr Blackwell would have been in the business of writing music to start with, and if he was, it is unlikely that it would have been easy to strike up a contract to record the songs.
When you take the “simple” out of the system, things stop happening. Anyone who thinks the current licensing is bad should consider what it would be like if every musician and every record label and every song writer and every producer had unique contacts for each song. Imagine trying to license music when you need to deal with each person individually, and that in each case, the ownership and rights that exist are different, using different terms, and are expressed in different ways.
As for the “art created” the WHY question is important because what Nina and others are trying to say is that someone (they can’t say who, apparently) said without copyright, there would be no art. My answer is (a) without copyright, there would not have been this particular piece of art, and (b) the question why is important in explaining A. It does not for a second suggest that the lack of copyrigth would stop all art. It might have gotten in the way of this one happening, but others would have happened.
Re: Re: Re:2 Did he just say, that?
Pipe down, you’re just embarrassing yourself at this point.
Re: Re: Re:3 Did he just say, that?
The only thing embarrassing is you trying to shout me down.
Such a child!
Re: Re: Re:4 Did he just say, that?
Heh I realize that I really should just taunt you from the start. It’s much more fun watching you get all flustered and angry than hearing your half-baked attempts at sounding intelligent and rational. Neener neener, jackass!
Re: Re: Re:4 Did he just say, that?
No, srsly, you are embarrassing yourself.
From Zot-Sindi, Aug 30th, 2011 @ 3:53pm
the proof is in your fucking face all around and you sit and deny it, LALALLA I CANT HEAR YOU
Srsly, there’s no further proof that can be given to you aside the ones already given here, with citations. It seems to me that you are stretching the interpretation to what suits you. While I do agree that you can interpret the citations the way you did, once you read the things in context it is clear they use the arguments meaning that no copyright means no art. The citations alone might mislead you to think that they mean monetization only but try to get it into context. I really tried to be nice and go through your interpretation but it’s simply not feasible.
So I’m with Marcus, pipe down, relax and read carefully without stretching it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Did he just say, that?
NInja, please. The quotes provided don’t say “without copyright there would be no art”, they say that “without copyright, there wouldn’t have been THIS art”. There would still be art, but art would be different.
That you guys can’t understand the signficant difference is a real head shaker. It makes me understand why sometimes here it is hard to have a decent discussion.
The quotes don’t say what you with they said. Can you not accept that?
Re: Re: Re:6 Did he just say, that?
Marcus’ reply
Ninja’s reply
Chuck Norris’ Enemy’s reply
At this point, you’ve found a number of people that have replied to your response and found the answer. You continue to deny reality and ignore those claims until they satisfy YOU personally. They will not. However, as far as I see, since you have yet to actually reply to these comments with actual facts that directly contradict them, it seems you’ve conceded defeat in your tantrum throwin.
Re: Re: Re:6 Did he just say, that?
You really don’t understand art, do you?
Oxymoron
all art is created without copyright, you cannot copyright something that does not exist.
If you paint a painting, when you FINISHED you can copyright it if you wish, but you cannot create that art with a copyright, or copyright it before you create it.
Same with patents, you can not patent something until you invent it.
You cannot copyright a song before you write and perform that song.
Therefore all art is created without copyright, or patents, NO art is created with copyrights before its creation.
I did an electronics design in a peice of paper today, and a pencil it is a design, it is also art, but it’s not copyrighted, and it never will be, it is not patented and it never will be.
Nor is it necessary for me to copyright or patent it, or to ever copyright or patent it. But I still created it !!!
Like everyone else does, does nina create her cartoons because of copyright ? or in spite of copyright ?
Nina, has is crossed you mind this :
“here is my non-copyrighted “ART”, dipicting that you cannot create “art” without copyright !!”
“Ball-Point Pen” was patented, did anyone notice how there was a big restriction on ball point pens, or a ‘monopoly’
on them ?
It’s a shame you mostly seem completely out of touch with reality….
Re: Oxymoron
when you FINISHED you can copyright it if you wish
Umm, no… Copyright is automatic. It is not “if you wish”
You are right that there is no copyright BEFORE the art is created. But THE INSTANT you create it (even if “it” is just a doodle on a napkin) you are granted a copyright for your life plus several decades, whether you want that copyright or not. It is NOT “if you wish”.
I did an electronics design in a peice of paper today, and a pencil it is a design, it is also art, but it’s not copyrighted, and it never will be, it is not patented and it never will be.
If you did it in the United States or any other country with automatic copyright, then YES IT IS.
Darryl, listen closely: copyright is automatic. The moment you put pen to paper, you own the copyright.
Re: Re: Oxymoron
You might be getting patents and copyrights confused. Patents must be applied for, so that much you have right. But copyrights are automatic.
Re: Re: Re: Oxymoron
Damn! I thought darryl had found a legal loophole.
“This book wasn’t finished, so I completed the last chapter, and I now own the copyrights to that book.”
Am I the only one who feels like they are banging their head against a brick wall while reading darryls posts?
Re: Re: Re:2 Oxymoron
Am I the only one who feels like they are banging their head against a brick wall while reading darryls posts?
My brick wall started to develop cracks in the mortar joints, so I had to stop reading darryl’s comments a few months ago.
Art, inventions and money
I would argue that the best art and the best inventions aren’t made by people who are out to make a buck primarily. The best art is made by real artists, who do it because they’re compelled to and riveted by their work, and those artists (regardless of medium) would do their thing without copyright too.
We don’t have any need for copyright, patents or any of the myriad BS inventions that have been put into place to service the money side of society – if we just change society into a sane version that doesn’t use money at all but instead provides people with their needs out of our shared communal resources in this solar system. Money and the notion of rulers and the ruled (which, let’s face it, is exactly what is going on still, to this day, in society) is a long since obsolete concept that the rulers of course do everything in their power to perpetuate. 99% of us are the losers of that particular game, yet not only do the top 1% defend it… most of the foolish wage slave peons defend the system too. Incomprehensible.
The cartoons and message are very funny. 🙂
got alot of hits thought !!!
Marriage is a ‘copyright’ LAW on LOVE !!!!!…
so you cannot create something without it automatically being copyrighted ! and you cannot be in love without first being married !!!!
Nina and Masnick what a great couple they will make !!!
Re: got alot of hits thought !!!
lolwut?
Software and patents-art and copyrights
The art of writing software flourished before the courts started allowing patents on software, Now we have patent wars, patent trolls and all sorts of patent abuse, and software development has slowed to a crawl as companies have to spend $billions and much time defending themselves against questionable patents. Patent trolls are leeches and parasites who invent nothing, have no usable product to sell, and acquire patents for the sole purpose of suing others for patent infringement. Now we even have copyright trolls who do much the same thing, only in a little different way.
Even Bill Gates said that if patents had applied to software 20 years ago, none of the computing technology that we use every day today would exist.
Art flourished long before there was such a thing as copyrights. When copyrights came along it was for the purpose of rewarding authors for their work with a limited time monopoly on their work, I think about 14 years. Copyright today has become a protection racket for big corporations which virtually control copyright law. Back in the dawn of copyright, once a copyright expired the work entered the public domain and could be used by anyone. Now the term is the life of the author plus 70 years, and for all practical purposes forever, since every time Disney’s copyright on Mickey Mouse is about to expire the term of copyright gets extended another 20 years. Not content with that, the term of copyright has actually been extended backward I think to about 1916 on copyrights whose terms were about to expire under old copyright law, when the new law was enacted. This means it will probably be decades (if ever) before any new works enter the public domain, by which time the media they were recorded on will have decayed and the works lost forever.
Copyright is fine if it would be used as originally intended, it is certainly not fine the way it is being used today.
’nuff said.
Re: Software and patents-art and copyrights
When copyrights came along it was for the purpose of rewarding authors for their work with a limited time monopoly on their work, I think about 14 years.
Crosbie, here’s your cue! 😉
Ninja Paley Strikes Again ...
… with yet another cartoon-a-katana.
And what if all the people in the world decided to rebel and stop paying for art? What if all the people downloading art just stopped? Art needs the audience, period.