Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
Government funding of the arts hasn't worked out perfectly in the US, especially for even remotely controversial or political artworks. Can you imagine the NEA funding NWA or Noam Chomsky?
|
Well, I would point out that unlike the current funding model of the NEA, Stallman's proposal does tie funding to how often the work is accessed by the public. Right now artistic endowments often are granted with little regard to how many people are ever going to care that the work even exists.
Quote:
|
Now, I don't have a problem with adding new sources and methods of funding or compensating the arts. (In particular, I don't view government arts funding as an expensive boondoggle.) But I think it's a bit absurd to assert that copyright is null and void because you change the medium from a physical object to a digital format.
|
Well, I think he has a certain point. I am not saying that copyright itself should be abolished, but currently the media industry appears to be looking at ways to retain greater and greater amounts of control over the works they have published. Media company representatives have even suggested that the notion that the consumer owns the media they purchase is outdated.
Remember, the primary purpose of copyright and patent law is to enrich the public domain with arts, inventions and ideas. It is important to make sure that those who contribute to the public domain in a significant fashion are rewarded for it, but such rewards should not come at the expense of enriching the public domain.
--
Bill