Copyright is Out of Sight

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

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?

how is Harry Potter supposed to contribute to the well being of humanity? how about trash metal?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

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

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.

Making value judgements on the worth of a text, seems to me an impossible task. You might not see the value in some work and view it as a simple diversion for the masses, but I might read the work and take away a fundamental new view on the nature of existence and what it means to be human.

My point is, that we are incapable of determining how a particular work will affect anyone.

I agree that reselling another's creation while not giving the creator any dues, is a bit odd. But it's an anomaly, and we should not be basing the laws of our society on the actions of a few anomalous individuals and what they might do.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

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?
....

Easily. That individual created it, they can choose what to do with it.

The ability to copy something means nothing.

I can copy you given a sample of your dna. Does that mean you belong to me to do with as I please?

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I can copy you given a sample of your dna. Does that mean you belong to me to do with as I please?

You would be able to control the copy.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Easily. That individual created it, they can choose what to do with it.

The ability to copy something means nothing.

I can copy you given a sample of your dna. Does that mean you belong to me to do with as I please?

The individual is an illusion, we simply cannot determine where one mind ends and another begins, to me this has major implications for AI, possibly the stumbling block, your thoughts, your actions did not simply appear from nothingness, they were instigated by other thoughts that your mind has experienced and transformed and expelled back into the physical.

So no, I do not believe that you or I can create anything, I still pay for art and knowledge occasionally though.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by 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...

Swift analysis. Indeed music "composer" is so named for that hand copying tradition.

But the analysis fails to acknowledge authorship, it only deals with the mechanical aspect: painters paint, musicians compose and perform, writers write. Where is authorship in this? I'm pretty sure Michelangelo had many assistants in helping him with his largest works: did he receive same as his helpers? Is the value of his works due to him or to his helpers?

You're certainly not implying that copying is more important than content, are you? If you are, then feel free to copy this paragraph and send it to darknet so that I can become more popular than Stephen King and more erudite than Milton.

It's not because the artist was liberated from the menial task of reproducing his work that his authorship is any less valueable. If you believe that, just drop that pirated popular ebook you're reading and go read some free twits to uncover the hidden meanings of life, the universe and everything...

"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"...

[spellbanisher]

On the one hand, you can argue that we originate nothing in ourselves. Everything thing that we know and do comes from observation and imitation. The language we speak we learn from others; our mindset and worldview is imbibed from our surrounding culture. So we can say that since culture creates us, we are communal bodies.

On the other hand, it is undeniable that some people have a natural ability to refine and reimagine their culture better than others. It is in the vested interest of our culture to reward those those with exquisite abilities, because it enables them the time and incentive to to explore and reach the limits of their abilities, thereby enabling them to contribute their best, and the best of humanity, to us all.

On the third hand, free stuff is awesome.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

On the other hand, it is undeniable that some people have a natural ability to refine and reimagine their culture better than others. It is in the vested interest of our culture to reward those those with exquisite abilities, because it enables them the time and incentive to to explore and reach the limits of their abilities, thereby enabling them to contribute their best, and the best of humanity, to us all.

magnificent!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

The individual is an illusion, we simply cannot determine where one mind ends and another begins, to me this has major implications for AI, possibly the stumbling block, your thoughts, your actions did not simply appear from nothingness, they were instigated by other thoughts that your mind has experienced and transformed and expelled back into the physical.

So no, I do not believe that you or I can create anything, I still pay for art and knowledge occasionally though.

So then, given that - what you think doesn't matter cause it's just part of the collective. We'll just leave this as they are. No need to change copyright laws.

[spellbanisher]

It must be noted that and cultural creation only has value in its dissemination, in fact, its value multiplies exponentially in its dissemination. If I create a masterpiece of something (you can tell I'm quite the artistic soul) but keep it to myself it is worthless. The more people that get to experience my masterpiece, the more people that are enrich who can then go and further enrich their surrounding culture. Every writer, painter, and artist is inspired by those their peers and predecessors. Culture is synergistic. its not a coincidence that most of the great writers in history were a part of groups or in places that had other great writers. The richer the souls of those around us, the richer our own lives become.

It is all a matter of balance. Encouraging dissemination of artistic works good for us all, because it gives people easy access to works that can enrich their lives. That is why copyrights are for limited times only. However, artists need to eat. Food for the soul isn't quite as nourishing as a steak dinner.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

On the other hand, it is undeniable that some people have a natural ability to refine and reimagine their culture better than others. It is in the vested interest of our culture to reward those those with exquisite abilities, because it enables them the time and incentive to to explore and reach the limits of their abilities, thereby enabling them to contribute their best, and the best of humanity, to us all.

Ending copyright will not end contributions to these creators you suppose.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Ending copyright will not end contributions to these creators you suppose.

I didn't state any position on copyright. I just think we need to think hard about compensation for our artists, knowing what we know about human nature.

[spellbanisher]

I am willing to support any position on copyright for a fee: 1000 dollars, 700 Euros, 650 British pounds, or a lap dance from Shakira.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

I didn't state any position on copyright. I just think we need to think hard about compensation for our artists, knowing what we know about human nature.

I really don't see the problems, I can copy anything I want and give it away to everyone else right?

Pay who you can when you can, if we really wanted Utopia we would have it.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

The right to copy has always been a serious issue

There is no right to copy. What you mean is the right to copy someone's work without paying for it.