Copyright laws

It is a social good. A sufficiently large enough number of people want content to be created. Presuming that the net spending on content creation can be less with a centralized body than through the traditional avenues, it only makes sense to use a centralized body. The question, of course, is whether we can really make an efficient trustworthy centralized body.

To which I reply "Not in America."

You should factor in a random award value, just to keep things interesting.

Haw haw haw.

Ten millionth Harry Potter fanfic wins a free car!*

x6 (Jeysie) I'm pretty sure Deboss meant it in the sense 'art is not inherently deserving, simply on grounds of being art. It has to be good art to deserve funding.', rather than 'art shouldn't exist except if it's good'

edited 17th May '11 7:12:10 PM by SavageOrange

'Don't beg for anything, do it yourself, or else you won't get anything.'

Uh, no.

Going from prior statements, absolutely none at all is what's being suggested.

So, a actively negative statement in the sense that 'art actively should not exist' (anti-cultural), rather than a neutral 'art has no particular reason to exist' (artistic existentialism)?

If that's actually true, I must question why he would even be here on TV Tropes.

EDIT: On viewing this ('culture is a blight on civilization'), I must agree with your evaluation. Of course it's a nonsensical troll premise — culture IS civilization. It amounts to habits of thinking, acting, and relating; and works which promote them. Without habits and means to reproduce them, we would be on a lower level than animals.

edited 17th May '11 7:32:54 PM by SavageOrange

'Don't beg for anything, do it yourself, or else you won't get anything.'

Yeah, going by some of his comments in a different past thread, I got the feeling he meant it literally that art doesn't deserve to exist.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

I do think I should point out that, AFAICS, "doesn't deserve to exist" doesn't mean anything to an existentialist (I'm awesome! I don't deserve to exist, either. same as I don't deserve to not exist). I think you mean something stronger, like 'all art/culture has negative worth', which would communicate pretty unambiguously no matter what your philosophy or culture.

edited 17th May '11 7:37:07 PM by SavageOrange

'Don't beg for anything, do it yourself, or else you won't get anything.'

My general view on copyright is that an artist should be able to protect his work if he so chooses. There are two reasons any artist produces art: to get people to pay attention to it, and to get themselves paid. Generally if an artist values the latter over the former he will charge to view his art, and that is fine. If you disagree with having to pay the artist to experience his art, then you should not experience his art, not subvert his system to get it anyway. Not only is this more ethical (or at least there is no standard where this is less ethical) but it's also going to be more effective in making the artist reconsider his model, because his art is now failing on both counts rather than just one.

On top of all this, it is perfectly valid to publish art with no regard to copyright at all. Amateur art, writing, music, video, games and every other art under the sun exists in abundance. If you don't like the state of copyright you can live an artistically-fulfilled existence while avoiding any material exercising its copyright.

I feel that if you want to dismantle copyright as we know it, you would be far better off to get artists to reject it. A quiet revolution of creators giving their art for free and allowing anyone to do with it as they please is going to be far more justifiable, not to mention more realistic, than forcing the creators to relinquish their current rights to the art.

Now, this doesn't mean I think intellectual property as it exists today is ideal. I have no problem with illegally acquiring art that you genuinely cannot legally acquire by any means (poverty is not an excuse, but things like lack of distribution are). An artist shouldn't be able to forbid someone using his ideas if he is not and does not intend to use them himself. Similarly I think in the case of things like fanfiction, an artist shouldn't stop someone creating original amateur art based on his ideas. As long as no one is selling the inspired work and it is sufficiently different to not actually be a competitor to the original, a fan should be free to create what she pleases. Perhaps most importantly, an artist shouldn't be able to give away rights to his work, only lease it. If a musician signs a contract with a record company to create an album, he should be able to say what happens to his album outside of the terms of the contract. If he decides to sell his album himself in competition with the record label, that label should not be able to do anything more than terminate the contract according to its terms. Rights should belong to a creator or nobody.

I think that sums up my views on this matter.

(edit: typing a long-winded argument at 3am does not lead to grammatical accuracy)

edited 17th May '11 7:48:01 PM by Tenebrais

Everything is best in moderation.

In a somewhat existentialist view. While it doesn't deserve to exist, no one should have the right to stop it. So, no interference*

, but no public support at all. Including for the artist.

I don't think it's valid to assume such. When you run something through a centralized body, you tend to have much more standardization, or just flat out handing money to whoever shows up with something claiming it's art.

Fight smart, not fair.

For the sake of the model, we're assuming the centralized agency would be more efficient than megacorps who have to take their X% of net total revenues. It is, indeed, entirely possible that that would not be the case.

The biggest reason to assume such is that you could have people downloading things guilt free. That's free distribution-you're getting around the transaction costs involved in distribution. That means the maximum amount of people are enjoying any given work.

edited 17th May '11 8:48:44 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

You're assuming that guilt will slow down the transaction fee. I, personally, would be willing to download a hard embedded commercial supported show. It's not like they're not easy to ignore.

Fight smart, not fair.

Well, yeah, that's true. Just letting the people remain guilt works just as well. Which is why that's probably the solution. But it feels intellectually dishonest, so there's cognitive dissonance involved.

With the centralised socialist model, there's still some distribution costs. Even if you're assuming people will be hosting and sharing content amongst themselves, it's got to start somewhere. There might be an argument for a centralised government server somewhere.

The biggest issue would be administering the payouts from the government in a fair way. Good luck getting everyone to come to an agreement about what is "fair".

Because the current model is really that fair :P

The model itself is fair, it's just how it works in practice. People insist on getting it illegally, then complaining when they get fined. Regardless of whether you think they should just let that happen, fact of the matter is, folks are still breaking the law.

They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?

I more meant how authors are compensated by megacorps, not the downloading situation.

Today's situation is a lot fairer now the internet is available as a distribution channel. It's no longer a question of signing your life away to a publisher or you're locked out completely. There's plenty of alternatives. Each has pros and cons, but they're there.

I really don't like the idea of government funding of all or almost all artistic product. I would honestly rather the current system, as fucked up as it is, to that.

A brighter future for a darker age.

Wow, I think Tenebrais just completely summed up my own feelings up there, including the various changes I'd like to see to copyright.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Seconding Tenebrais's excellent post.

Who watches the watchmen?

Free expression concerns make me hostile to the notion of banning noncommercial copyright infringement.

People (not corporations, corporations may be legitimately subjected to restrictions) should have an unqualified right to free speech, even when that speech is dickish. Piracy is dickish speech, but it is still speech.

edited 18th May '11 5:48:44 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Piracy isn't free speech, though, and banning it doesn't abrogate your right to free speech in any way. I mean, you're free to say whatever you want about a work. You're just not allowed to repeat and share the work verbatim without the creator's permission.

Or at the very least, piracy isn't just dickish, it's lazy and mooching. Come up with your own work instead of just parroting other people's.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

It's a fairly burdensome limitation on speech. I'd get rid of it.

Speech can be dickish, lazy and mooching. It's still speech, even when it's just parroting.

edited 18th May '11 6:22:52 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.