Copyright is Out of Sight

[spellbanisher]

Something else that i must add to my posts on art is that art can also show us possibility or inspire us. Speculative fictions, such as Star Trek, can show us a better or different vision of the future. A possible fourth category, although it could possibly be subsumed by the first category, is cathartic fiction. Cathartic fiction is a realm where we can express or explore antisocial desires and feelings and impulses. I think a lot of video games would fall under this category, games like Grand Theft Auto which give you total freedom. In a society we are constantly constrained, obligated, and compromised. Cathartic fictions allows us a level of freedom that is impossible in society. Still, I think cathartic fictions fall under the first category, because ultimately the catharsis is a form of pleasure.

Ultimately, these categories are ideals. Writers create for a multitude of reasons; passion for their craft, desire for recognition, prestige, fame-seeking, a search for truth or beauty. Every writer must make compromises, and every writer is subject to the economic, political, and social structure which he creates. Dickens didn't write the stories in the precise way he wanted to tell them, but in a way that was compromised by things such as the structure of publishing, I.E. the serialization. Serializing forced him to be more wordy (because he was paid by the word) to have excess characters and descriptions and plot twists. Almost every classic writer probably had to make compromises, and if they hadn't, they would never have published and never have become classic authors.

In art, we can discover our sphere of freedom. We compromised and constrained in our interactions with others, in our daily lives in society, but in our hearts and minds and souls we can experience freedom, and art is the catalyst to liberation, the guide to the universe of freedom.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

But what is up with all this greed anyway?

Wanting something for free is not greed? Why should writers and other artists work for your pleasure without any reward? So you think it is fine to pay a plumber who fixes your toilet but balk at paying people who bring you many hours of reading pleasure? And when you yourself go to work for someone and you want them to pay you, is that greed?

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If his song creates that kind of wealth, why not? What about a sports star that rakes in 100 million a year? If he or she can generate enough income money for advertisers -- then yes, they are worth it.

While I know some workers who get only 1000 each month but their work is worth less than that for the company, if you really analyze it. It is not about the effort put in, it is about the wealth created by work performed that determines it's "fair" monetary value. If a book sells well (instead of just being given away for free) it creates value for society. It generates income for many people involved in its creation or distribution.

I'm not so sure that the is creating wealth for anyone but the artist. Much of that would depend on how the song is monetized. It might create work for advertisers, but that is unlikely. Advertising is a cannibalistic industry. If people don't view one thing it just means they will view another thing and the advertisers would follow the audience. Of course you could argue that it drives more people to the internet or whatever place the advertisers are working, but again, that just means that people are going from doing one thing (watching tv, driving by billboards, walking on streets filled with advertising) to another thing. No extra value is created for advertisers.

Obviously, no one else makes any money off the creation of the song over thirty years after its made. Most of the people involved in the production of a song don't receive royalties. As far as distribution, there might be some wealth distribution there, but again, unlikely. There's always opportunity costs to spending. If a consumer spends a on the song from 1972 that's one less dollar he has to spend on something else. If anything, longer copyrights hurt modern singers and song-writers, because people are spending their money on someone who is no longer producing music instead of people who are still making music. If anything longer copyrights are damaging to the economy because they contribute to the concentration of wealth in the hands of people who are no longer productive, thereby decreasing the purchasing power of the rest of the population. A dollar spent on recently created music will provide jobs for lots of people such as sound engineers and editors, whereas a dollar spend on a song from forty years ago only enriches the artist and maybe the executives of the record company.

Overall, society spends way too much money on entertainment industries. Athletes, movie stars, pop singers, collectively make billions even though there are still glaring and troubling problems in the world. I don't blame artists for this, nor do I think we should resort to more centralized methods of distributing wealth. It is more a reflection of the modern consumer, of the extreme short-sightedness, selfishness, and hedonism of most people. But you cannot say that the entertainment industry is creating wealth or needs to be a bigger chunk of the economy; if anything, it is massively diverting wealth from more important areas of the economy.

[spellbanisher]

To my point I already made, there is nothing wrong with the concentration of wealth, just the concentration of wealth in the hands of unproductive individuals. Concentrated wealth is actually essential to creating new industries and expanding existing ones, because it enables long term and massive investment.

But it also must be understood that wealth is created when there is demand for services; a countries central bank tries to ensure through a variety of mechanisms to ensure that the amount money in the economy is equal or in slight excess to the demand. Too much money and you have inflation, which when spread out over a large population means most individuals don't have quite enough purchasing power to buy anything. Too little money and you get deflation, which hurts the economy in two ways; first, it causes a downward spiral in prices because the consumer will not spend until prices bottom out (no one wants to buy something only to find out its cheaper a weak later). The decreased demand creates a cycle of decreasing prices, and you end up with a price spiral. Cheaper goods means that businesses can't afford to pay their employees as much, and since it is usually very difficult to lower wages you end up with mass layoffs. The unemployment further depresses demand thereby worsening the price spiral.

Concentrated wealth can also contribute to inflation, however. When individuals who don't invest or produce end up with large amounts of wealth, you end up with less currency among the general population. Central banks cannot pump any more money into the economy because it would spike inflation. You end up with a stagnant economy with massive divides between rich and poor.

Entertainment industries can be especially pernicious for an economy. Modern economics is based on ever increasing consumption; wealth does tend to be distributed disproportionately, but it does not matter as long as their is always increased demand (and thereby more wealth). But there is only so much shit you can buy, only so much media that you can consume. As demand plateaus wealth begins to concentrate, but since the market is saturated there is no area for investment. Eventually, the purchasing power of the populace diminishes.

In the late 90's the music market hit its first saturation point. A booming economy (the 90's was the richest decade in human history) fueled unprecedented levels of consumption and spending in entertainment, but as I said, there is only so much shit you can buy. The rise of napster while music sales declined was only a coincidence. Napster came to the fore in 1999, the economy slumped in 2001, and the music industry went after napster in 2001. Both times the music industry saw dramatic declines in sales in the last 15 years, 2000-2002 and 2007-2009, where during severe economic recessions. The disappointing growth in the 2000's was more due to the stagnant recovery than it was due to piracy. The 2000's saw a stark decline in purchasing power. Whereas the nineties was characterize by the growth of middle class incomes, the 2000's actually saw a decline in middle class income, but it was offset by credit. The music industry was actually saved by developments in digital technology, such as ipods and other mp3 players, which created new demand. But once again the music industry has reached a saturation point, and that will mean more concentrated wealth, less purchasing power among the populace, and more misguided arguments by entertainment companies that piracy is hurting their bottom line.

I should also add that one way to deal with market saturation if there is no new markets to expand into is to raise prices or to lower costs of production, neither of which are desirable. Raised prices, especially in entertainment, can have unexpected consequences, such as driving people to piracy or to other things. Lower costs of production drives down wages, lowering purchasing power.

[wyndslash]

i wish i was as smart as you, spell :O

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Wanting something for free is not greed? Why should writers and other artists work for your pleasure without any reward? So you think it is fine to pay a plumber who fixes your toilet but balk at paying people who bring you many hours of reading pleasure? And when you yourself go to work for someone and you want them to pay you, is that greed?

I would hope the plumber will fix my toilet because the plumber enjoys fixing toilets. And also because the toilet needs to be fixed.

Nothing is free. Everything has a cost. I don't think we should restrict ourselves to dollars and cents though.

If I went to work at an anarcho-capitalist collective retailer, I would expect an equal share of the profits, if everyone worked at one of these types of institutions...

It's not like the current system isn't about to collapse under the weight of its own toxicity, or is it?

THIS IS NOT ABOUT NOT PAYING ARTISTS. THIS IS ABOUT NOT BEING FORCED TO PAY ARTISTS.

[wyndslash]

@giggle: nobody's forcing you to pay artists. everyone has choices. it's just a matter of whether it's a good or bad choice, or a hard or easy choice. it's like what my marketing prof told us; if you can't afford it, don't buy it.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by wyndslash

@giggle: nobody's forcing you to pay artists. everyone has choices. it's just a matter of whether it's a good or bad choice, or a hard or easy choice. it's like what my marketing prof told us; if you can't afford it, don't buy it.

Heresy! Ye of little faith, dare ye speak blashphemy to the eternal one, may ye never enjoy a good book again! Depart Sinner! All Hail Lord Giggles! Bringer of the the New World Order! Bow infidels or perish!

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I would hope the plumber will fix my toilet because the plumber enjoys fixing toilets. And also because the toilet needs to be fixed.

The problem is that there have always been jobs that no one wants to do. Historically those jobs were either done by people with low skills or by slaves. There have been novels that have made suggestions around these problems. Ursula Leguin's Anarres ( in her novel The Dispossessed) is an egalitarian planet that rotates jobs every couple of months, so that no one has to do nasty work for more than a few months at a time. There is also no government, per se, although there is an administrative body. Generally society is run by social convention or pressures, such as there are no police, but if someone commits a crime that person would either be ostracized or himself become a victim of vigilante justice. People do their work because it connects them to the community, and Shevek, the main character, says that he enjoyed doing the hard manual labor because it allowed him to leave his studies and work outside with his hands every once in awhile. Additionally, toiling at crappy but necessary jobs helped create a sense of solidarity and community. The novel also acknowledges that this type of society would not be as wealthy or as economically productive as a more capitalistic one (although that could just be because Anarres was a barren planet) but people there generally felt a greater sense of security, solidarity, community, and satisfaction with their work.

The downside, however, was that social or community pressure tended to stifle individuality. They developed a bit of an insular, close-minded, mob mentality, where anyone who differed too much from social norms or was too different or weird was subject to ostracization.

Thomas More, in his work Utopia, also suggests ways that the problem of people having to do crappy jobs for a living can be solved. In the first part of the novel he discusses the problems in Sixteenth century England (how the enclosure acts helped create a crime wave); it includes a great line that goes something like government creates criminals and then it punishes them. The second part of the novel is his utopia.

If you haven't read it already you should; it is fantastic and in the public domain so you can download it from gutenberg.org for free.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

If I went to work at an anarcho-capitalist collective retailer, I would expect an equal share of the profits, if everyone worked at one of these types of institutions...

It's not like the current system isn't about to collapse under the weight of its own toxicity, or is it?

Well, if this is about the evils of capitalism, then I think you should start another thread in the lounge

[wyndslash]

@spell: interesting. i might read that~

in any case, all forms of political psychobabble have their pros and cons. we're humans; we're bound to make mistakes, blah blah blah

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Well, if this is about the evils of capitalism, then I think you should start another thread in the lounge

Ha! Ha! Ha! This thread has gone off topic about two dozen times (usually because of me). Its a little late for that. This thread has been all over the place. It's a little bit of everything. It's more like a hot dog than a thread.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by wyndslash

@spell: interesting. i might read that~

You shouldn't read that, blasphemer. What you should be reading is the Holy Book of Giggles.

[wyndslash]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

You shouldn't read that, blasphemer. What you should be reading is the Holy Book of Giggles.

I HAVE A RIGHT TO EVERYTHIIIIIING

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by wyndslash

I HAVE A RIGHT TO EVERYTHIIIIIING

Only because Giggles gives you those rights. But he will only deliver the faithful. Heaven, the land of free plumbing and books, is only for the devout.