Oh boy where do I even begin. On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Alexander Berntsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > That doesn't enter into a discussion on ethics. >
Well yes, because as I just said, copyright has nothing to do with ethics. I would very much prefer if you stick to a specific set of views rather than jumping back and forth. > Pretty close to nobody is doing that. What most artists in most > disciplines do is have someone distribute copies of their works. These > distributors typically request money for those copies. Some of the > distributors go further, and chastise anyone who has obtained copies > outside of their controlled distribution. In some industries the artist > doesn't really make any money from this (music is an example of this), > and in some industries it's even unclear who the artists are (film). But > in *very* few industries are any artists today making some piece of art > that they then try to sell. > Why yes, of course. I had completely forgotten how Stephen King, Ingrid Michaelson, and all of the journalists at The New York Times are all working gratis and providing their creations to the world at no cost. /s I will say that, yet again, abuse of the current copyright system does not translate to the need to completely dispose of copyright from our society. Hell, the free software movement would not be possible without copyright. There are varying degrees of copyright "protection". Some of them are > lesser evils in today's society (the GPL), but most of them are not. > Copyright should not exist, but it necessarily exists due to other > societal problems. Any copyright that isn't constructed to fix those > societal problems, and even worse if it adds to them (ND/NC/etc.) has no > ethical virtue. This doesn't make any sense. What "societal problems" is copyright trying to fix? As I said before, I do not believe copyright has *anything* to do with "ethical virtue". It has solely to do with the economy, and protecting the financial interests of artists and inventors. You continue to put artists on a pedestal as "creators", yet you > belittle their art into mere "content". As for "profit" as in financial > income, I don't think that is some creator given birthright. If you > can't make money off your art, then you need to deal with that. If > society doesn't value art, that's society's prerogative, but in most > countries there is funding for art, and there are means of income as > an artist if you are creative enough (and hopefully, as an artist, you > are creative). If you can't find them, then perhaps you should get a > job that benefits society in a better way. I have said this twice already in this email and multiple times previously, but you seem to not be reading anything I'm saying. I am not arguing artists have an ethical "right" to anything. I am saying there is an economic desire to protect the financial interests of creators. And please stop putting words in my mouth regarding this "artists as deities" concept or "put[ing] artists on a pedestal as 'creators'". If you have a problem with the English definition of the word "creator", this isn't the mailing list to discuss it. Now if you want to talk about the economic aspect, which you do touch on very briefly, then that's another story. I would very much like you hear your ideas on how to make the creation of artwork economical, other than a simple "if you can't make money off your art, then you need to deal with that". Because the way most people would "deal with that" is by not making their artwork anymore, and pursuing a more profitable profession, which defeats the entire point of copyright: to encourage the creation of artwork. And yes, "most countries there is funding for art", including the United States! That said, I would be surprised if in *any* country if you were to run into a random painter or author on the street and they told you their entire livable income is provided by the government because of their status as a "creator". *That* would be putting artists on a pedestal, and would be an unwise use of taxpayers' money. "Regulating" here is another word for "controlling". And the reason for > controlling someone is to divide and subjugate them -- to oppress them. > Government should not "be allowed" to do anything that limits my > freedom any more than other people should. > Oh god. Look I'm not prepared to host a comprehensive argument against anarchy and the necessities of *some* form of government. Take that to a different mailing list. > > That is a *vast* oversimplification of the situation, and really > > does not make any sense at all with regards to my argument. Are > > you trying to say that because something as simple as the C note > > shouldn't be patentable (a completely different concept than > > copyright), that an author shouldn't be able to profit from their > > original creation for a brief period of time? > We're emailing a discussions list. Did you really want me to explain all > of economy in an email? I'm actually too busy working on free art at the > moment, and thought that my point was clear enough. > No, I want you to make an argument, not shoot one-off thoughts in your head that don't actually make a point. This applies to any law about anything. Law is just theology + magic. This is perhaps the most absurd thing you've said so far. And at this point I'm just assuming you are trolling for responses, so I'll leave off here. If ever you do have any serious interest in solutions to the copyright system as it is now, Lawrence Lessig's *Free Culture* is actually a really good resource, especially considering he is one of the bigger proponents of the free culture movement, and one of the founders of Creative Commons. *-- * *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016 Major in Computer Science
