Copyright is Out of Sight

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

TRUTH: We cannot deny knowledge to those who cannot afford it.

Besides a work of art not being knowledge, what about those who can afford but won't because it's freely available and they see no point?

We DO need digital guns to enforce authors' rights.

[spellbanisher]

And the arguments begin anew.

[kennyc]

Oh Yeah. That's modus operandi for these discussions. No one every changes their minds we just do a lot of shouting back and forth, three or four rounds and we drop it until the next young eyes-full-of-stars-with-no-understanding-of-how-the-world-really-works newbie comes along and starts a new thread.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Oh Yeah. That's modus operandi for these discussions. No one every changes their minds we just do a lot of shouting back and forth, three or four rounds and we drop it until the next young eyes-full-of-stars-with-no-understanding-of-how-the-world-really-works newbie comes along and starts a new thread.

Thus continuing the mobileread circle of life, err, discussion.

[Namekuseijin]

I feel dizzy already.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Besides a work of art not being knowledge, what about those who can afford but won't because it's freely available and they see no point?

We DO need digital guns to enforce authors' rights.

I need to convince you that a work of art is knowledge. But how? When you view a painting, surely the painting alters the flow of your mind. Below is Van Gogh's sunflowers, a meditation on the beautiful yet transitory nature of life. Make the most of the time you have here, help others when you can.

Paintings, books, reality TV, music, EVERYTHING has the ability to change your world, if you are receptive to the idea that you can be changed. I could list a thousand examples that have changed my views, but all that is needed is ONE.

Will I concede tomorrow that copyright is needed in order for the arts to continue to flourish? It is doubtful, humanity has been creating for millions of years, perhaps longer. All of this time creation has existed without copyright.

We cannot force people to purchase the right to access knowledge. The world will not end when copyright does. In fact culture will flourish and spread quicker and faster than before, now that it is easier than ever to copy.

Copyright is holding our culture back!!!!!!

[spellbanisher]

Actually the painting itself contains no knowledge. The knowledge is in the interpretation.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Oh Yeah. That's modus operandi for these discussions. No one every changes their minds we just do a lot of shouting back and forth,

OH NO WE DON'T!!

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Oh Yeah. That's modus operandi for these discussions. No one every changes their minds we just do a lot of shouting back and forth.

I change my mind after every post. In fact, I just changed my mind from disagreement with kennyc to vehement disagreement with him.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I need to convince you that a work of art is knowledge. But how?

beats me. I don't believe it is, at least useful knowledge. You can certainly score high on TV quiz shows though...

When you view a painting, surely the painting alters the flow of your mind.
Below is Van Gogh's sunflowers, a meditation on the beautiful yet transitory nature of life.

How is that flow or idea any different from the flow of any other dead nature painting out there?

I fear almost never paintings do anything for me, unlike music, movies or literature -- or indeed games. I think timed events do alter my flow better.

Make the most of the time you have here, help others when you can.

I'm no good samaritan. Why should I help a lazy crackhead pirating bum? People carve their own tombs, it's hopeless trying to lend them a hand when they'll use it to dig further...

Paintings, books, reality TV, music, EVERYTHING has the ability to change your world, if you are receptive to the idea that you can be changed. I could list a thousand examples that have changed my views, but all that is needed is ONE.

The problem is that in the old days literature used to teach about morals and thus was valued as useful knowledge. Then, as Frank Baum neatly realized in the introduction to "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz":

"Yet the old time fairy tale, having served for generations, may now be classed as "historical" in the children's library; for the time has come for a series of newer "wonder tales" in which the stereotyped genie, dwarf and fairy are eliminated, together with all the horrible and blood-curdling incidents devised by their authors to point a fearsome moral to each tale. Modern education includes morality; therefore the modern child seeks only entertainment in its wonder tales and gladly dispenses with all disagreeable incident."

Spot on! That's why Wilde said "All art is quite useless" It is futile entertainment hoping not to change the world or help anyone, just offer different viewpoints and amusement. Even if you do get touched by the experience, that's not like acquiring useful knowledge.

humanity has been creating for millions of years, perhaps longer.

Let me guess: scientologist?

fossil record shows about 1 million years for the most primitive humans and just about 1 hundred thousand years for homo sapiens...

BTW, I very much prefer Van Gogh to cave paintings...

All of this time creation has existed without copyright.

yes, artistic expression will go on, money involved or not. Perhaps not as masterfully executed as by renascentist painters comissioned by patrons, perhaps not with the same level of skill and excellence as classical composers employed as servants to nobles, but it'll go on, even if just 140-chars twitter poetry, pixel-based fan art or remixed metal rap-rock by youtube jockeys. who would pay for that anyway?

Copyright is holding our culture back!!!!!!

It's not holding anyone from publishing their works for free AT ALL. It's just that you want everyone to comply, even ones that think their work is any worth.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

It's not holding anyone from publishing their works for free AT ALL. It's just that you want everyone to comply, even ones that think their work is any worth.

If someone wants to charge for their work that is fine. But that does not mean I should be forced to pay for it. I view pricetags on knowledge as simply a reminder of the effort involved in the production of knowledge.

[elcreative]

For all the time humanity has been creating it has been originals or hand produced copies of originals and the producers were ALWAYS reimbursed for their work if it was their occupation... now we have the ability to inexpensively reproduce books, music and much other artwork so nobody deserves to earn a living from their art... copyright became a serious issue once copying moved from a hand operation to a simple technical procedure (starting with movable type) and was designed to stop people stealing another's work...

"Copyright is holding our culture back!!!!!!" is a nice idea for the independently wealthy producer which, of course, you are or for the anarchist who uses a mask of his care for humanity as a disguise to justify theft, fraud and any other act "for the good of the people"...

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Will I concede tomorrow that copyright is needed in order for the arts to continue to flourish? It is doubtful, humanity has been creating for millions of years, perhaps longer. All of this time creation has existed without copyright.

Copyright is holding our culture back!!!!!!

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by elcreative

We have the ability to inexpensively reproduce books, music and much other artwork. Copyright became a serious issue once copying moved from a hand operation to a simple technical procedure (starting with movable type) and was designed to stop people stealing another's work...

The right to copy has always been a serious issue, if a work contributes to the well being of humanity, how can you define the work as belonging to an individual?

Why do some choose to never contribute monetarily to the creators? Beats me, maybe they are contributing in other ways. And perhaps these other ways are more important to the advancement of our culture than a simple transfer of funds. I'm an anarcho-capitalist by the way.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

If someone wants to charge for their work that is fine. But that does not mean I should be forced to pay for it.

nor forced to read it.

Why can you pay for bread but not for a book?

I view pricetags on knowledge as simply a reminder of the effort involved in the production of knowledge.

It's not knowledge: no bright new formulas to cope with problems, no valid new laws or fundamental properties uncovered. It's a work to amuse people who'll pay for it. People who won't pay for it are not forced into reading it either.

[spellbanisher]

You know what, Namekuseijin, if that is your real name, there's a name for the hateful belief that art is useless. It's called artism. And that makes you an artist. Wait...what? That can't be right...