Quote:
Originally Posted by leebase
A fantastic example. Would you prefer to return to the time when the arts existed solely as patronage from royalty? Myself, I prefer to be able to use my own money to entice folks into producing works that _I_ like. There may be no prince or princess that likes sci-fi, but millions of us nerds together, using our individually meager means, combine to create a market that can support folks in the production of "art" that pleases us.
You'll have to elaborate on Verdi as I'm ignorant of how copyright discouraged his efforts.
Do you have sources that I may refer to?
|
Actually Beethoven is one of the first composers who were able to support himself WITHOUT patronage
He did indeed profit from patronage until 1794 but after that he earned his living from a sum of incomes, from teaching piano, giving concert, from subscribers and from fee of his published compositions.
He dealt with imitation by making his works so complex that few could play them as well as him.
With the introduction of Copyright, Guiseppe Verdi exploited them to the fullest. Deploying staff of rights managers and attorneys as a result Verdi became very rich and his compositional efforts diminished, from 14 operas in the 1840s to seven in the 1850s, two in the 1860s, and one each in the succeeding three decades. Here's one of multiple sources:
http://www.serci.org/docs_5_2/doc5_2_2.pdf.
For many hundred years, content creators made a living without requiring either patronage or Copyright.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebase
I do not take the position that our current copyright situation is nirvanna. Only that intellectual property as a concept is VITAL. It is a virtue.
Without copyright, there is no way to profit from authoring books. Consider the millions of dollars spent on creating the movie Avatar. Without copyright, I could instantly create a copy, distribute it across the internet for free, instantaneously. Sure, folks that run theaters could still make some money as some folks are going to pay to see it on the big screen. But the theater need not pay James Cameron one penny.
Without copyright, there could be no professional book industry.
|
It's definitely not a virtue, quite the opposite. Without Copyright a professional book industry existed for hundreds of years. We don't have to support an ecosystem because it's the only one we know. There's so many ways moviemakers and authors can make a profit, that doesn't involve controlling the rights to their works way past their own life time.
The more you get your work profiliated and the more who read your books or listen to your music, even if it's for free. The more you can profit from various derivatives. Concerts, book tours, beautiful leather bound books etc. The more your work spreads, the more you could earn. The less successfull authors would earn less, but they already are under the current model.
I am not saying that this is the solution or discussing the economics of it. I am just saying that:
1. Copyright is not the virtous system that you portray it to be.
2. Copyright is not the only market model possible.
3. Copyright has alot of BAD side affects.
I kind of feel we're suffering from Stockholm's syndrome, defending a system that clearly has alot of disadvantages to us, rather than press for changes that'll prove advantageous. I do realize that we live in symbiotic relationship with the book industry, and as such some of us identify with them to the exclusion of our own interests. But I find it unconscionable to defend a system that deprives the work of cultural treasures like the Beatles songs and award ownership of them to undying corporate entities. A system that restrict access of information to the masses. Remember this link? This is what would have belonged to all of us this year if we didnt keep awarding companies longer and longer copyrights:
http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/pre1976
Let not lack of imagination prevent us from pushing towards a system that benefits us and the authors more.