Copyright Laws Threaten Our Online Freedom

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Jack Tingle

Because all someone has to do is draw a different mouse, on a different steamboat, better than Disney's. You can't sue over that.

You can sue over anything. Give Disney's resources, very few people could afford to take them on, regardless of whether or not they are right.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

They certainly were when those works entered the public domain. That's what the public domain basically is, cultural heritage. With the way current copyright laws are being written/updated, there won't likely be anything entering the public domain anymore.

I thought we were talking about Elvis Presley works, which were not in the PD, and by extension other copyrighted works not in the PD, and therefore did not think it necessary to stipulate that this was what I was referring to.

Yes, items out of copyright that fall under PD could be considered "ours". If that is what the author was referring to then my bad for completely missing the point of the article. I'm not sure why he would be using Elvis Presley copyrighted works as an example if that were the case though.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

....However if artists are unable to get compensated for their works, they won't be able to continue producing those works, particularly works that require extensive resources and labor (e.g. movies)....

In the world there are billions of workers who are compensated every month (or week) without being protected by copyright. From bricklayers to top executives.

What makes you think that artists and writers cannot be paid like every other working person in the world?

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Jack Tingle

Wikipedia is welcome to use public domain or their own photos of the paintings. They just aren't welcome to use someone else's photos. Laziness is not a justification for the abrogation of copyright law, however flawed it is. And yes, copyright is one of the best ways of paying for creations of the mind.

AFAIK, there are restrictions on 2-dimensional reproductions of a painting - which a photo might well be (if it included the frame, it could be argued that it is 3-dimensional). I don't know this exact case (they might have used copyrighted photos), but it would still be a problem if I went to a museum, took a photo of a painting and cropped it, and put the photo in wikimedia commons. It could then be considered a "copy" of the original work. A photo of a sculpture is different, as it depicts something 3-dimensional, it would be considered my own work, not a copy.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by Ea

but it would still be a problem if I went to a museum, took a photo of a painting and cropped it, and put the photo in wikimedia commons.

Even if the painting is from the 16th century?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Format C:

In the world there are billions of workers who are compensated every month (or week) without being protected by copyright. From bricklayers to top executives.

What makes you think that artists and writers cannot be paid like every other working person in the world?

The difference is because the bricklayers and executives are doing what they are told for the benefit of a single entity(their boss or their company for example). For their labour they are compensated by the entity that is directly benefiting from that labour.

On the other hand, the artist is creating their own work from their own ideas and this work can and is enjoyed by many people over and over. They therefore do, and should, retain control over its' distribution. Furthermore, those people directly benefiting from the artists labour(the audience enjoying the book for example) are, and should be, required to make reasonable payment for said benefit.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Jellby

Even if the painting is from the 16th century?

I researched two years ago regarding some images for a Wikipedia article about Hephaistion, and as far as I remember that was the result. In such a case the owner of the painting, for example the museum, would have the copyright for 2-dimensional reproductions.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

The difference is because the bricklayers and executives are doing what they are told for the benefit of a single entity(their boss or their company for example). For their labour they are compensated by the entity that is directly benefiting from that labour.

On the other hand, the artist is creating their own work from their own ideas and this work can and is enjoyed by many people over and over. They therefore do, and should, retain control over its' distribution. Furthermore, those people directly benefiting from the artists labour(the audience enjoying the book for example) are, and should be, required to make reasonable payment for said benefit.

Cheers,
PKFFW

And this 'requirement' of payment how will you enforce it in a digital age? With DRM? How? It's impossible to apply a scarcity model to an abundantly reproduceable object. If for no other reason, that is why copyright is useless. Copyright only works with physical objects, not the digital.

/you are likely to be eaten by a grue

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Format C:

In the world there are billions of workers who are compensated every month (or week) without being protected by copyright. From bricklayers to top executives.

What makes you think that artists and writers cannot be paid like every other working person in the world?

Copyright just makes sure that artists and writers are being paid just like every other working person in the world. You are suggesting that they are supposed to be the only ones who shouldn't get paid. The nature of their work just makes copyright necessary today. Some artists (like a sculptor) do not need that protection, since each piece cannot be duplicated. Or rather a duplicate made by somebody else would not be an exact copy.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And this 'requirement' of payment how will you enforce it in a digital age? With DRM? How? It's impossible to apply a scarcity model to an abundantly reproduceable object. If for no other reason, that is why copyright is useless. Copyright only works with physical objects, not the digital.

/you are likely to be eaten by a grue

Firstly, just out of curiosity, what does that final line mean? Honestly, I can't work it out.

As for the rest, frankly it's not my concern how they will enforce it. People will get around whatever they come up with anyway I grant you that. It doesn't even matter if the item is priced reasonably, those that do not want to pay, simply wont. Furthermore, as this attitude of "I can get it for free so that gives me the right to get it for free" becomes more and more accepted, it logically follows that less and less people will pay anything at all for what they want.

What interests me is why so many people seem to think artists should have no control or rights over what they create? That the audience should have total and sole rights? Why do so many people feel they have the right to enjoy the labours of artists for free but they certainly don't want to work for their own boss for free?

Why should there even be the thought of "how do we force people to respect the rights of the creator"? Why don't people simply respect those rights as a matter of course?

Cheers,
PKFFW
P.S: This is really just a philosophical musing before bed rather than any sort of argument so don't feel the need to reply if you don't want to.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

The difference is because the bricklayers and executives are doing what they are told for the benefit of a single entity(their boss or their company for example). For their labour they are compensated by the entity that is directly benefiting from that labour.

On the other hand, the artist is creating their own work from their own ideas and this work can and is enjoyed by many people over and over. They therefore do, and should, retain control over its' distribution. Furthermore, those people directly benefiting from the artists labour(the audience enjoying the book for example) are, and should be, required to make reasonable payment for said benefit.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Think about building a bridge or a road, or water supply...

Do a road worker has to be paid for 70 to 98 years after his detah?
Or is it fair to pay him by the hour?

And remember: I'm not saying "don't pay artists". I'm just saying "pay them by other means".

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Copyright just makes sure that artists and writers are being paid just like every other working person in the world. You are suggesting that they are supposed to be the only ones who shouldn't get paid. The nature of their work just makes copyright necessary today. Some artists (like a sculptor) do not need that protection, since each piece cannot be duplicated. Or rather a duplicate made by somebody else would not be an exact copy.

Not at all.
I've never told once in my life that artists should not be paid.
What I say is that copyright, today, is completely nonsense. For the exact reason you are exposing: digital copies have no physical value at all.

I say that copyright is not the only way to pay for a work. And it's by far, the most unfair.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Firstly, just out of curiosity, what does that final line mean? Honestly, I can't work it out.

As for the rest, frankly it's not my concern how they will enforce it. People will get around whatever they come up with anyway I grant you that. It doesn't even matter if the item is priced reasonably, those that do not want to pay, simply wont. Furthermore, as this attitude of "I can get it for free so that gives me the right to get it for free" becomes more and more accepted, it logically follows that less and less people will pay anything at all for what they want.

What interests me is why so many people seem to think artists should have no control or rights over what they create? That the audience should have total and sole rights? Why do so many people feel they have the right to enjoy the labours of artists for free but they certainly don't want to work for their own boss for free?

Why should there even be the thought of "how do we force people to respect the rights of the creator"? Why don't people simply respect those rights as a matter of course?

Cheers,
PKFFW
P.S: This is really just a philosophical musing before bed rather than any sort of argument so don't feel the need to reply if you don't want to.

I'm not in the number of people who wants it all for free.
But, if BAEN gives me a free sampler CD, I download it, and I'm happy with it.
I suppose you don't...



I'm sure artists have complete control over what they create as long as they don't publish it. When it's published, they lose much of that control.

In the actual copyright-large publishing companies-real world, artists don't have control over what they create, not even during creation itself.
So, whatever change is, it's always for the better.




I'll be happy to pay Elvis Presley in person even a thousand $ for every song I listen.
I'm really willing to respect Elvis' rights.
A large company trying to control what I listen, when, where and on which device is definitely not an "Elvis Presley's right".



PS: my one is just a phylosophical lunchtime musing, but I'll be happy and honoured by every reply I'm wothy of.

[HansTWN]

The original of the digital copies do not have any physical value, either. A teacher, a manager, or a trainer (in the world of sports), a musician performing live do not create anything of physical value. That is an arbitrary distinction made by you. Sure, some artists, authors seem to be overpaid. But if they bring in the big bucks because people are willing to pay for their works they create a lot of value for society. What you get paid depends on how much you are making for your employer and how easy it is to replace you.

You do have a certain point regarding copyright after death. 70 years is a long time. But you have given no specifics on how else the artists should be paid.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Firstly, just out of curiosity, what does that final line mean? Honestly, I can't work it out.

It's from the game Zork, and also repopularised by the Nerdcore rapper MC Frontalot. I was listening to the track at the time (bought with real money ) It struck me as apt that the line, and basically the whole game of Zork became the basis of another work. The transference of art, you could say.

As for the rest, frankly it's not my concern how they will enforce it. People will get around whatever they come up with anyway I grant you that. It doesn't even matter if the item is priced reasonably, those that do not want to pay, simply wont. Furthermore, as this attitude of "I can get it for free so that gives me the right to get it for free" becomes more and more accepted, it logically follows that less and less people will pay anything at all for what they want.

What interests me is why so many people seem to think artists should have no control or rights over what they create? That the audience should have total and sole rights? Why do so many people feel they have the right to enjoy the labours of artists for free but they certainly don't want to work for their own boss for free?

Why should there even be the thought of "how do we force people to respect the rights of the creator"? Why don't people simply respect those rights as a matter of course?

Cheers,
PKFFW
P.S: This is really just a philosophical musing before bed rather than any sort of argument so don't feel the need to reply if you don't want to.

I don't think anybody is arguing artists shouldn't have rights, but that in a very practical way, artists have very little 'control' any more in a digital world. Its not that people don't respect creative works, there are numerous studies and real-life examples where free = bigger profit in the end. Where treating your audience with respect equals a greater end benefit. Artists must adjust to the reality around them, or forge a new reality.

Copyright neither affects these outcomes or has any influence on them. Its redundant in the modern age, unworkable, and at the very practical level, unenforceable. And why do people think they should enjoy work for free? Well, because the digital world has made it so. Its a fact of digital life that anything can be reproduced and shared with little effort. You can't put that genie back in the bottle, no matter how hard you try. And you're right, those that don't want to pay, wont. They wouldn't pay for the object in real life either, so its a zero sum game, you haven't lost anything, because the payment would have never been made in the first place. Those that do want to pay, on the other hand should be given more options than the old, stagnant object=value proposition we've had for so many years (and you'd be surprised how many people do want to pay for cultural works even in this digital age. But not at the insulting price points the big Corps set, or using that old object-orientated model).

These are exciting times for creators of any kind. You now have an abundance of choice, where 'you' get to choose what culture you want to participate in. Copyright puts up an artificial barrier in the way of this process. It's a gate erected to protect not the creator, but the business owners who deal in those copyrights. At the very least it needs to be changed to reflect the times we live in. Life +70 years is ludicrous and does nothing to promote new works of culture.