MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

spellbanisher · 02-23-2011, 10:35 PM

In response to Giggleton's post outlander78 said Giggleton's ideas were good on paper, but in reality the quality of fiction and research and world knowledge would take a dive. Outlander78 dismisses Giggletons arguments as the typical perspective of a “kid living with your parents.” Outlander78 seems to think there is an absolute standard for fiction, as supposedly quality is subjective. Most research throughout the world has done by publicly funded universities. Collaboration and cooperation are actually at the heart of research. Arguably the most productive period of human creativity and knowledge in world history was the Renaissance, a period that predates the Intellectual Property era and that was defined by the free flow and sharing of information. Everyone copied everyone, and this sharing of knowledge contributed to the end of the Middle Ages and it helped usher in the modern world. Yes, it was the free sharing of information that ushered in the modern world, not intellectual property. Outlander78's reality is contemporary, not eternal.

Mr ploppy rebuttal to outlander78 was that content creators would find new ways to monetise their creations and that “the human desire to create will never go away” because it was there before copyright and it will be there “long after they become meaningless.” While I agree with his argument that people will always create culture, Mr ploppy fails in this post to explain why it would more desirable to create in a culture without copyright than in a culture with copyright. Part of the reason the Statute of Anne was created in 1709 was to recognize that works of art were the property of their creators. The first copyrights were created to free artists from exploitation, to ensure that the law would ensure to them what was theirs.

In the United States copyright law was created to encourage the creation and dissemination of information. But another reason was to prevent the concentration of power, something they feared above all. The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights limited the power of the Church, the checks and balances as well as the tenth amendment limited the power of the federal government, and the first copyright laws limited the power of publishers to control the spread of knowledge and culture. The intent of the initial copyright laws was to prevent the concentration of power, something I think our current copyright laws have failed to do in the age of the “Big Four.” By handcuffing publishers, writers were supposed to have more control, for a time, over their creations. This was also done to encourage a more democratic culture, because it allowed for ordinary people to control content production and dissemination works instead of the few powerful.

02-23-2011, 10:35 PM	#383
spellbanisher Guru Posts: 826 Karma: 6566849 Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Bay Area Device: kindle keyboard, kindle fire hd, S4, Nook hd+	In response to Giggleton's post outlander78 said Giggleton's ideas were good on paper, but in reality the quality of fiction and research and world knowledge would take a dive. Outlander78 dismisses Giggletons arguments as the typical perspective of a “kid living with your parents.” Outlander78 seems to think there is an absolute standard for fiction, as supposedly quality is subjective. Most research throughout the world has done by publicly funded universities. Collaboration and cooperation are actually at the heart of research. Arguably the most productive period of human creativity and knowledge in world history was the Renaissance, a period that predates the Intellectual Property era and that was defined by the free flow and sharing of information. Everyone copied everyone, and this sharing of knowledge contributed to the end of the Middle Ages and it helped usher in the modern world. Yes, it was the free sharing of information that ushered in the modern world, not intellectual property. Outlander78's reality is contemporary, not eternal. Mr ploppy rebuttal to outlander78 was that content creators would find new ways to monetise their creations and that “the human desire to create will never go away” because it was there before copyright and it will be there “long after they become meaningless.” While I agree with his argument that people will always create culture, Mr ploppy fails in this post to explain why it would more desirable to create in a culture without copyright than in a culture with copyright. Part of the reason the Statute of Anne was created in 1709 was to recognize that works of art were the property of their creators. The first copyrights were created to free artists from exploitation, to ensure that the law would ensure to them what was theirs. In the United States copyright law was created to encourage the creation and dissemination of information. But another reason was to prevent the concentration of power, something they feared above all. The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights limited the power of the Church, the checks and balances as well as the tenth amendment limited the power of the federal government, and the first copyright laws limited the power of publishers to control the spread of knowledge and culture. The intent of the initial copyright laws was to prevent the concentration of power, something I think our current copyright laws have failed to do in the age of the “Big Four.” By handcuffing publishers, writers were supposed to have more control, for a time, over their creations. This was also done to encourage a more democratic culture, because it allowed for ordinary people to control content production and dissemination works instead of the few powerful.