Stallman: Ending the War on Sharing

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Yes, you have that in Europe -- bureaucrats spending the 50% the average (!) worker gets deducted from his paycheck every month for everything the bureaucrats deem worthy. I don't feel that that is a good system to replicate! And in spite of those subsidies, tickets for theaters, classical concerts, etc are sky high. The city I was born in has only 250,000 people and spent 50 million Euros to build a theater which puts up performances only some old ladies watch who go there to show off their expensive clothes. How is that for "democratic".

I like my government funded arts thankyou very much, and I also like my government funded health service and schools and you know, all the good stuff that makes life bearable. I don't even mind my no-advert BBC radio that I pay a license fee for. I also like that we still have regional theatres that put on plays like "Abigail's Party", which are also funded by the local government. Works pretty well from where I'm standing.

[Hellmark]

On the TV, I wouldn't mind paying for commercial free. Here, even the TV we pay for we have commercials on. PBS is commercial free, and gov't aided, and I really love it.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I like my government funded arts thankyou very much, and I also like my government funded health service and schools and you know, all the good stuff that makes life bearable. I don't even mind my no-advert BBC radio that I pay a license fee for. I also like that we still have regional theatres that put on plays like "Abigail's Party", which are also funded by the local government. Works pretty well from where I'm standing.

Sure there are good things about it. But this goes back to what you think about democracy and rule by an absolute authority who decides the culture you are being fed. And there are many things definitely wrong with it. Every tiny city has a government funded "symphony". Lousy musicians, lousy accoustics, but they burn through money like crazy. And besides, I am not so sure most people in the US, Canada, Asia, etc will be so happy to fork over 50% of their hard earned money. In Europe you have no choice. Works for you though, obviously. But do you represent the majority? Most Englishmen care more about soccer than theater, I bet.

[HarryT]

I really don't know where you get your ideas from, Hans. How much time have you actually spent in Europe, as a matter of interest? I would certainly say that Moejoe's views are representative of the majority, yes.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I really don't know where you get your ideas from, Hans. How much time have you actually spent in Europe, as a matter of interest? I would certainly say that Moejoe's views are representative of the majority, yes.

Actually, I spent more than 22 years in Europe, Germany and France, that is. My youth, mostly. I still keep in touch through the German local TV news, papers, friends, and family. No need to argue about this, but people in this forum tend to be well educated and interested in culture. And as such are more inclined to support such use of public funds, as you two do. Anyway, just my opinion, I maybe wrong. Moejoe's argument was "it is more democratic", which means supported by the majority of the population. So you seriously believe that for the majority of Englishmen theater and art is more important than soccer?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

So you seriously believe that for the majority of Englishmen theater and art is more important than soccer?

No, I don't, but soccer is a commercial enterprise - the big football clubs make huge amounts of money from selling TV rights. I genuinely do believe that the majority of people in the UK believe that "Arts Council" grants are worthwhile and necessary. The fact that arts are a minority interest does not mean that they should not be publically funded.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, I don't, but soccer is a commercial enterprise - the big football clubs make huge amounts of money from selling TV rights. I genuinely do believe that the majority of people in the UK believe that "Arts Council" grants are worthwhile and necessary. The fact that arts are a minority interest does not mean that they should not be publically funded.

You are right -- I never wanted to suggest that. No public funding for the arts means almost no arts, I am definitely for it within reason. I had problems with the word "democratic" for something that is more "elitist" (in a good way, I suppose). And I also would think that those works (like books, p and e) that could stand on their own through direct sales should be allowed to do so. Public funding also means government control.

[Jellby]

I'd guess most of those who support a public tax-payed health system seriously hope never to use it

By the way, "50% gets deducted from the worker's paycheck every month" is the wrong way to see it, one should never care about the "raw" amount of his paycheck, but only what remains after taxes are deduced: Is that enough for you? Yes. Then why give a dam' about whatever else is going to taxes?

[Ea]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You are right -- I never wanted to suggest that. No public funding for the arts means almost no arts, I am definitely for it within reason. I had problems with the word "democratic" for something that is more "elitist" (in a good way, I suppose). And I also would think that those works (like books, p and e) that could stand on their own through direct sales should be allowed to do so. Public funding also means government control.

You do seem to assume that all supported projects are "elitist". In my experience this is not the case (at least here - I can't speak for other European countries). A broad spectrum of cultural projects are supported, including "evening schools" where people can pursue hobbies and other things of private interest, as well sports clubs. It's not all opera houses and ballet

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Jellby

I'd guess most of those who support a public tax-payed health system seriously hope never to use it

By the way, "50% gets deducted from the worker's paycheck every month" is the wrong way to see it, one should never care about the "raw" amount of his paycheck, but only what remains after taxes are deduced: Is that enough for you? Yes. Then why give a dam' about whatever else is going to taxes?

Exactly my opinion also.

And it is not 50% that gets deducted. It is more like 30%.

[HarryT]

Totally agree.

[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?

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.

[bill_mchale]

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.

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

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Public funding also means government control.

Nope. The Arts Council is government-funded, but independent.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by tompe

Exactly my opinion also.

And it is not 50% that gets deducted. It is more like 30%.

Which is not that much different than here in the States. You just get a lot more for it there.