Quote:
Originally Posted by riemann42
I am mildly offended that my position is categorized as being in favor of Big Media. I am in favor of a legal framework that encouraged authors and artists to participate in a system to insure that they are compensated.
Right now, at least in the States, our law is written by large corporations, rather than artists and consumers. Right now, consumers have very little rights to the Digital Media they purchase. If it is protected by DRM, we have very little rights. It is a criminal act to remove this DRM. In effect, most of the 'Big Media' ebooks have no right of resale.
I want to not be a criminal because I use Linux. I want to buy media from the store with the lowest price. I will confess to a strong bias against used CDs and Bookstores, as I strongly feel that the artist or author deserves to be compensated at each sale. If we disagree on this point, then I do not believe we can ever come to an agreement, and that's OK.
|
Insure they are compensated? That would be the Marxist view that work adds value, personally I am not a communist so I oppose the idea that artists deserve pay simply for creating. Now a system that allowed them the chance to try and make some money in an open market for their creations sounds good, of course the problem with this is unless it sells for a big pile of money the first person to get their hands on it will make copies and sell them cheaper or give them away because they don't have the development costs the artists did, no investment in pizza and caffeine.
Perhaps if we had some sort of system to promote the progress of science and the useful arts that granted a short term monopoly to the artists just long enough for them to make a profit if one can be made but not so long as to prevent them from needing to make more art to keep food on the table. Seven years sounds nice and maybe then a renewal for another 7 if they're still alive, of course that could be a little short. 28 years? Maybe as high as 56? 56 years is a long time and you have to figure if someone can't turn a profit in that time they're doing something wrong and just aren't going to make a profit. At the same time or I should say in time they lose that monopoly as a sort of tax they pay to get that monopoly in the first place the artist would have to lose control to the people who were nice enough give them protection. Odd idea probably not workable but something to think on.
As to your opposition to used book and cd stores do you also feel an artist should be payed if someone resells a painting? A patent holder if you resell your lawnmower? How about a royalty when you give away a book you no longer want or a pen you no longer want? The idea is absurd. Would you ever really own anything unless its so old nothing in it is covered by some monopoly granted for the sake of progress? And where would there be any progress when you can't freely build on anything that came before without having to pay just to add your own idea?
I don't want to pick on you here but a big problem here and elsewhere is taking one idea that sounds good and not thinking it through to everything affected by it. You see quite a bit of it in politics when some idea is popular or unpopular and people get all up in arms for or against it without understanding that said tax cut will take away really useful x, or banning $unpopular_thing by extension allows the banning of $thing_unpopular_with_crazy_fringe_group and then $thing_you_like_but_might_one_day_have_a_bad_effec t_on_random_child_maybe.