View Single Post
Old 08-25-2010, 03:52 AM   #42
capidamonte
Not who you think I am...
capidamonte can even cheer up an android equipped with a defective Genuine Personality Prototype.capidamonte can even cheer up an android equipped with a defective Genuine Personality Prototype.capidamonte can even cheer up an android equipped with a defective Genuine Personality Prototype.capidamonte can even cheer up an android equipped with a defective Genuine Personality Prototype.capidamonte can even cheer up an android equipped with a defective Genuine Personality Prototype.capidamonte can even cheer up an android equipped with a defective Genuine Personality Prototype.capidamonte can even cheer up an android equipped with a defective Genuine Personality Prototype.capidamonte can even cheer up an android equipped with a defective Genuine Personality Prototype.capidamonte can even cheer up an android equipped with a defective Genuine Personality Prototype.capidamonte can even cheer up an android equipped with a defective Genuine Personality Prototype.capidamonte can even cheer up an android equipped with a defective Genuine Personality Prototype.
 
capidamonte's Avatar
 
Posts: 374
Karma: 30283
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Honolulu
Device: PocketBook 360 -- Ivory
Quote:
Originally Posted by meromana View Post
Our statements are not in conflict. Copyright would not encourage the production of art if it did not protect the financial interest of the artist. (Talking about works that have not passed into the public domain yet.)

The idea that art inherently belongs to the masses is about as socialistic as it gets. I'm just not seeing this entitlement thing. Why is the public entitled to read books or view art or hear music without the artist's or owner's agreement? No one expects my former employers to turn over statistical programs I wrote for them years ago, just because they're not using them anymore. They paid for that stuff; they own it. Why is art so inherently different?

I'm open...maybe someone can come up with an analogy that will make me see it another way.

--Maria
What's wrong with socialism? Far superior to naked capitalism. Certainly the large majority of the problems we all suffer from are the direct result of capitalism unfettered and corporate corruption.

The problem is not with having a limited monopoly for artists. It's with having an unlimited monopoly for businessmen. That is true entitlement. Why should a corporation be entitled to the control of culture? It's a soulless, sociopathic social construct devised to protect its profit-seeking minions from accountability for their selfish actions.

And "the artist" in your argument is a figleaf. No one, certainly not me, is arguing to restrict an artist's income. Pay 'em more, in fact -- get the parasites out of the equation entirely. (Go read some J. A. Konrath.) Copyright not controlled by the original creator is the problem. Gaining the permission of a third party is the problem. Permission culture is the problem. It's authoritarianism, verging on aristocracy. Measuring everything by the yardstick of money is a problem. There are other -- better -- values.

Water empires are the only empires -- and engineered scarcity is the direct result. Nothing has entered the public domain (in the US) in 87 years, nor is anything likely to in your lifetime, or your children's. The public domain has been walled off and carved up into fiefdoms.
capidamonte is offline   Reply With Quote