The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Arts & Entertainment => Topic started by: markjo on May 18, 2018, 09:18:45 PM
-
Buried in an otherwise harmless act, passed by the House and now being considered in the Senate, this new bill purports to create a new digital performance right—basically the right to control copies of recordings on any digital platform (ever hear of the internet?)—for musical recordings made before 1972. These recordings would now have a new right, protected until 2067, which, for some, means a total term of protection of 144 years. The beneficiaries of this monopoly need do nothing to get the benefit of this gift. They don’t have to make the work available. Nor do they have to register their claims in advance.
At this rate, will anything make it into the public domain ever again?
-
There's probably going to be a point when companies decide enough with the public domain, we're doing away with that shit, we're keeping the copyrights forever.
-
Copyright was intended to help producers of media secure an income from their work until they can produce new works to earn money on. It's noice to see that the focus of copyright laws is remains to support the poor creators of media.
-
Rights being protected for 100+ years is fucking ridiculous. It hurts art creation instead of helping it.
-
Rights being protected for 100+ years is fucking ridiculous. It hurts art creation instead of helping it.
How are the corporations supposed to turn a profit on their products within a 100 year span? Who would be motivated to create something that they do not have full control over until at least 50 years after their death?
-
Rights being protected for 100+ years is fucking ridiculous. It hurts art creation instead of helping it.
How are the corporations supposed to turn a profit on their products within a 100 year span? Who would be motivated to create something that they do not have full control over until at least 50 years after their death?
Lol
-
Buried in an otherwise harmless act, passed by the House and now being considered in the Senate, this new bill purports to create a new digital performance right—basically the right to control copies of recordings on any digital platform (ever hear of the internet?)—for musical recordings made before 1972. These recordings would now have a new right, protected until 2067, which, for some, means a total term of protection of 144 years. The beneficiaries of this monopoly need do nothing to get the benefit of this gift. They don’t have to make the work available. Nor do they have to register their claims in advance.
At this rate, will anything make it into the public domain ever again?
Should it ever reach the public domain? Is the entire idea is to support freeloading hippies that wish to profit off deadman's great deeds?
-
Should it ever reach the public domain? Is the entire idea is to support freeloading hippies that wish to profit off deadman's great deeds?
Who's loss is it? If it's truly a great deed it should be popular enough that no one can just straight up copy it and claim it's their work. If they can it shows that not enough people knew about the original work, so that's an opportunity for the work to spread even if the wrong person might be credited (but hey, dead people can't complain and living people need to earn their livelihood). And if people think they can take the same base work and improve it, let them. That's how progress is made. It'd be boring if there's only ever allowed one attempt to make one work great, and once that attempt has been made and the original creator has passed away the work can never be improved again, or in other ways translated to fit into new societies, cultures and people.
-
Copyright should be done away with as far as derivative works go.
Vampires and zombies are such a big genre because bram stoker and George romero completely botched the copyright process.
-
Copyright should be done away with as far as derivative works go.
Vampires and zombies are such a big genre because bram stoker and George romero completely botched the copyright process.
I disagree. There is a certain line beyond which derivative works are just too dissimilar, but it's just so fucking easy to copy something and make a few changes and profit off of someone else's effort, often at the expense of the person who made it. A lot of the times, famous artists rip off lesser known artists, and the issue is that if they don't give credit, they won't be given the attention they deserve.
-
Whose lose? Man's. By demoting behavior that drives true progress and new works. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, to save the toe!
-
Whose lose? Man's. By demoting behavior that drives true progress and new works. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, to save the toe!
That's exactly what copyright does. It's good as long as the original creator is alive, it gives them the incentive to create something to begin with. But once they're dead? It only leads to stagnation. Humans have the capability to get bored by the same stuff over and over again, so new stuff is going to show up naturally. Meanwhile old stuff that's either imperfect, unknown or outdated is not allowed to be improved or explored or tested. And often the copyright is so ambiguous that it locks down a whole concept regarding an idea, rather than a specific depiction of an idea. As Crouton said, vampires and zombies as a concept could had been copyrighted if there hadn't been a mess-up. There's been loads of cheap clichéd and unoriginal zombie and vampire movies, but there has also been plenty of interesting movies and series that use these concepts to explore what it means to be human, what it means to be alive and various morals and ethics. Copyrights also cover names and visual designs, which is good for protecting brands but it also makes it a lot harder to reference other works or to use similes that compares objects or people in the work to objects or people from another work (which is often done to convey information about the character without having to contain it all in the work). For example calling a character Lucifer to give the hint that the character is devilish. Or calling them Hercules, or Sherlock.
-
Whose lose? Man's. By demoting behavior that drives true progress and new works. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, to save the toe!
That's exactly what copyright does. It's good as long as the original creator is alive, it gives them the incentive to create something to begin with. But once they're dead? It only leads to stagnation. Humans have the capability to get bored by the same stuff over and over again, so new stuff is going to show up naturally. Meanwhile old stuff that's either imperfect, unknown or outdated is not allowed to be improved or explored or tested. And often the copyright is so ambiguous that it locks down a whole concept regarding an idea, rather than a specific depiction of an idea. As Crouton said, vampires and zombies as a concept could had been copyrighted if there hadn't been a mess-up. There's been loads of cheap clichéd and unoriginal zombie and vampire movies, but there has also been plenty of interesting movies and series that use these concepts to explore what it means to be human, what it means to be alive and various morals and ethics. Copyrights also cover names and visual designs, which is good for protecting brands but it also makes it a lot harder to reference other works or to use similes that compares objects or people in the work to objects or people from another work (which is often done to convey information about the character without having to contain it all in the work). For example calling a character Lucifer to give the hint that the character is devilish. Or calling them Hercules, or Sherlock.
You've made a lot of mistakes in your above post, but they aren't really worth harping on as they are aside my point.
It does protect until the creator is dead, you are correct. This is hardly incentive to create new works. Still, we can go steal works and resell them with no incentive to instead build something new. You point out a lot of cases for this, and there are more.
An incentive to create new works would be if you couldn't steal existing works and sell them AND you got to own new works. Without an indefinite time span for protection, copyright law is just a cruel joke to make it seem like the working class and below own the means of production, when in actuality they do not.
-
I still can't figure out your position on this.
-
Copyrights should never expire and their protected works should never enter the public domain, because doing so allows freeloading hippies to profit off others creations rather than having to make something themselves.
-
Copyrights should never expire and their protected works should never enter the public domain, because doing so allows freeloading hippies to profit off others creations rather than having to make something themselves.
I don't think you understand how art creation works.
-
Copyrights should never expire and their protected works should never enter the public domain, because doing so allows freeloading hippies to profit off others creations rather than having to make something themselves.
I don't think you understand how art creation works.
I do. I made my life as an art creator. Although everything I created became property of my clients, the work product itself was a stand alone entity. Intellectual property. No different than any other thing that can be owned. A book, a song, software.
Should the McDonald's Golden Arches copyright expire?
You know how I got around Copyright Law? I created original work.
-
Copyrights should never expire and their protected works should never enter the public domain, because doing so allows freeloading hippies to profit off others creations rather than having to make something themselves.
I don't think you understand how art creation works.
I do. I made my life as an art creator. Although everything I created became property of my clients, the work product itself was a stand alone entity. Intellectual property. No different than any other thing that can be owned. A book, a song, software.
Should the McDonald's Golden Arches copyright expire?
You know how I got around Copyright Law? I created original work.
I do not object that your art is not affected by copyright law. It doesn't mean it can't negatively impact other forms of art. For example, copyright laws are a bitch for many narrative arts. Many great works of theater, cinema and literature have been influenced by older art in ways that would not be permitted if copyrights hadn't expired. Imagine Shakespeare still being copyrighted. And they're especially a bitch for music, where countless artists have faced issues for sampling, which is, like, the basis of entire music genres. Not to mention the fact that most of blues is the same few traditional songs, in a period when copyright laws weren't really enforced, and early rock artists didn't give much of a shit about taking other artist's creations and transforming them either. Entire genres have been based on recycling older or traditional works, and a lot of them are transformative enough to be valuable and original works, but not enough for copyright laws to consider them as much.
As for the McDonald's logo, I don't see this as relevant. First of all, McDonald's can just renew it. Second, the issue with logos is that companies can rip them off to mislead buyers. So I don't really see them as being the same with other works of art in terms of copyright.
What is a REALLY stupid idea is JD's idea that somehow unless works weren't copyrighted everyone would just copy older works. First of all, copyright laws still don't prevent unoriginal art from being created. Just look at Hollywood. It's just that big companies can rip things off as much as they want because they already own the copyrights to them, while independent creators don't have the same luxury. But it's not like without copyright years after the creator is dead artists wouldn't be incentivized to make original art. I'm so tired of all those artists on the radio ripping off Beethoven, said no one, ever. Artists always have an incentive to create original art works, and the ones that don't aren't really disincentivized by copyright anyways. Oh, by the way, I'm using "original" in its true sense, not in the copyright law sense (courts and legislators don't really understand the concept of something incorporating elements from other art and still being original for some reason). Copyright laws are really mostly valuable just for protecting the artists, after the artist has died they really don't do much more than making heirs rich and hampering creativity. Copyright laws can't inspire you.
-
Copyright laws are really mostly valuable just for protecting the artists, after the artist has died they really don't do much more than making heirs rich and hampering creativity. Copyright laws can't inspire you.
Let's say that someone creates a physical property that people will pay to interact with and someone else creates an intellectual property that people will pay to interact with.
The creator of the physical property dies and wills the property to someone and the creator of the intellectual property dies and wills that property to someone.
Does society have a right to strip these properties from their new respective owners and freely feast upon them?
What if the asset is owned by a corporation and 25% of the shareholders die?
Can the heirs inherit the stock or does 25% of the property become public domain?
Creative people are not concerned with copyright laws. They create new things.
Lazy, untalented people are stifled by copyright laws and rightly so.
-
Let's say that someone creates a physical property that people will pay to interact with and someone else creates an intellectual property that people will pay to interact with.
The creator of the physical property dies and wills the property to someone and the creator of the intellectual property dies and wills that property to someone.
Does society have a right to strip these properties from their new respective owners and freely feast upon them?
You're equating physical property with intellectual property. Not even the lawmakers who legislated the silly copyright laws we've ended up with tried to equate these two. For the record, I'm not entirely for copyrights expiring directly after someone dies. I think it's fair to let them chose to will the rights to someone to profit for some time after their death. But that time is already too long, and companies insist to lobby to make it even longer.
What if the asset is owned by a corporation and 25% of the shareholders die?
Can the heirs inherit the stock or does 25% of the property become public domain?
No, the rest of the shareholders keep the rights. How does 25% of something become public domain? That question is kind of like asking whether 25% of the company goes to the state if 25% of the shareholders die, it doesn't make sense.
Creative people are not concerned with copyright laws. They create new things.
Lazy, untalented people are stifled by copyright laws and rightly so.
Lazy, untalented people like most blues artists, most hip hop artists, most jazz artists (genres all based around giving a new spin on an old idea or incorporating large chunks of an older work in a new one), countless theater directors who make their own versions of classics, and numerous filmmakers, painters, and writers who incorporate elements of other works in their art or adapt these works? What copyright laws consider to be new and what is actually new are two different things, a lot of the times copyright laws just obstruct art creation. In fact, they often lead to MORE unoriginal art instead of less, because it incentivizes companies like Disney dig up franchises whose creators died ages ago, for which they still have exclusive rights.
-
You appear to be saying that basing a new work on someone else's existing work is innovation.
That is actually pandering. It's why every rap song sounds the same and every country western song sounds the same. Everyone competing to be the most generic.
And if you want a copyright to last forever, create a corporation to hold the asset. A corporation never dies.
-
Creative people are not concerned with copyright laws. They create new things.
Lazy, untalented people are stifled by copyright laws and rightly so.
Lazy, untalented people like most blues artists, most hip hop artists, most jazz artists (genres all based around giving a new spin on an old idea or incorporating large chunks of an older work in a new one), countless theater directors who make their own versions of classics, and numerous filmmakers, painters, and writers who incorporate elements of other works in their art or adapt these works? What copyright laws consider to be new and what is actually new are two different things, a lot of the times copyright laws just obstruct art creation. In fact, they often lead to MORE unoriginal art instead of less, because it incentivizes companies like Disney dig up franchises whose creators died ages ago, for which they still have exclusive rights.
You are most correct; copyright laws are not strict enough and should be adjusted so that they protect what is actually new rather than considered to be new under current law.
-
Creative people are not concerned with copyright laws. They create new things.
Lazy, untalented people are stifled by copyright laws and rightly so.
Lazy, untalented people like most blues artists, most hip hop artists, most jazz artists (genres all based around giving a new spin on an old idea or incorporating large chunks of an older work in a new one), countless theater directors who make their own versions of classics, and numerous filmmakers, painters, and writers who incorporate elements of other works in their art or adapt these works? What copyright laws consider to be new and what is actually new are two different things, a lot of the times copyright laws just obstruct art creation. In fact, they often lead to MORE unoriginal art instead of less, because it incentivizes companies like Disney dig up franchises whose creators died ages ago, for which they still have exclusive rights.
You are most correct; copyright laws are not strict enough and should be adjusted so that they protect what is actually new rather than considered to be new under current law.
I'm gonna try to put it politely:
Are you insane?
Ah shit, I failed.
-
Why should one man live off another man's labor? Do we really need 1000 takes on Sherlock Holmes?
-
You appear to be saying that basing a new work on someone else's existing work is innovation.
That is actually pandering. It's why every rap song sounds the same and every country western song sounds the same. Everyone competing to be the most generic.
And if you want a copyright to last forever, create a corporation to hold the asset. A corporation never dies.
Of course it can be innovation. It can also be plagiarism, but it isn't necessarily. A lot more innovative art is based on previous works than you think. Have you not heard that Picasso quote about it? So many innovators have done it. Nothing is really "original", everything is influenced by previous art works to various degrees. Sure, sometimes (read: all too often) artists go overboard. However, copyright laws don't police what is generic anyways, since that wouldn't make legal sense. They police what is perceived to be someone "copying" someone else. Never has a pop song been hit with a copyright claim because it sounded too generic.
Also sampling can be absolutely transformative, to the point where the new work isn't even "influenced" by the original in the usual sense, but legislators still can't get it through their heads and make exceptions.
Also all rap songs don't sound the same. That's coming from someone who doesn't really appreciate the genre very much. When people say that about a genre, it's usually because they're not very familiar with it or interested in it. All rock sounds the same to people who don't like it. All classical sounds the same to people who don't like it. All jazz sounds the same to people who don't like it. Don't tell me Flying Lotus, Drake and Death Grips sound the same after an honest listen.
Oh, here's a question (it's a trap, answer at your own risk ;)): Can you name some of your favorite classical performers and why you like them? Do you have any favorite bands?
-
You appear to be saying that basing a new work on someone else's existing work is innovation.
That is actually pandering. It's why every rap song sounds the same and every country western song sounds the same. Everyone competing to be the most generic.
And if you want a copyright to last forever, create a corporation to hold the asset. A corporation never dies.
Of course it can be innovation. It can also be plagiarism, but it isn't necessarily. A lot more innovative art is based on previous works than you think. Have you not heard that Picasso quote about it? So many innovators have done it. Nothing is really "original", everything is influenced by previous art works to various degrees. Sure, sometimes (read: all too often) artists go overboard. However, copyright laws don't police what is generic anyways, since that wouldn't make legal sense. They police what is perceived to be someone "copying" someone else. Never has a pop song been hit with a copyright claim because it sounded too generic.
Also sampling can be absolutely transformative, to the point where the new work isn't even "influenced" by the original in the usual sense, but legislators still can't get it through their heads and make exceptions.
Also all rap songs don't sound the same. That's coming from someone who doesn't really appreciate the genre very much. When people say that about a genre, it's usually because they're not very familiar with it or interested in it. All rock sounds the same to people who don't like it. All classical sounds the same to people who don't like it. All jazz sounds the same to people who don't like it. Don't tell me Flying Lotus, Drake and Death Grips sound the same after an honest listen.
Oh, here's a question (it's a trap, answer at your own risk ;)): Can you name some of your favorite classical performers and why you like them? Do you have any favorite bands?
Weird Al! His ability to make something amazing based on other peoples work was incredible. In most cases his talent exceeded that of the original authors IMO. @Bullwinkle Do you think Myley Cyrus is more innovative than Weird Al?
-
Why should one man live off another man's labor? Do we really need 1000 takes on Sherlock Holmes?
Do we need a billion Marvel movies with the same characters, or reboots and sequels and remakes for every second old successful movie or series? Probably not more than we need more takes on Sherlock, but we still get them, regardless of copyright laws, because the companies that churn them out already have the copyrights. Besides, even newer takes on Sherlock Holmes or anything that's already done to death can bring new elements to it. Most newer takes on Sherlock have little more to do with the books than just the name.
As for the living off of someone else's labour argument, are you under the impression creating a new work of art that incorporates elements or influences from an older one requires no additional effort? Where would humanity be right now if no one was allowed to use anyone else's ideas, for fear of "living off of someone else's labour"? Sometimes it's more than that and people really are freeloading, but that's just a necessary evil. It's not that important if it can no longer harm the creator.
-
@Bullwinkle Do you think Myley Cyrus is more innovative than Weird Al?
I have never heard Myley Cyrus.
-
@Bullwinkle Do you think Myley Cyrus is more innovative than Weird Al?
I have never heard Myley Cyrus.
I envy you!
-
@Bullwinkle Do you think Myley Cyrus is more innovative than Weird Al?
I have never heard Myley Cyrus.
She was that girl licking a sledgehammer everyone talked about for some reason a couple of years ago or so.
-
@Bullwinkle Do you think Myley Cyrus is more innovative than Weird Al?
I have never heard Myley Cyrus.
She was that girl licking a sledgehammer everyone talked about for some reason a couple of years ago or so.
I didn't say I've never heard OF her.
I know who she is, I'm just not 13 years old. ;)
-
Here's the parody, way better than the original!
-
I am pretty sure Taylor Swift got into a copyright dispute with someone over Shake It Off, and the judge threw it out because the lyrics in her song and the original weren't considered worthy of copyright protection. I'm pretty sure it was over the chorus. Which was forgettable shitty.
-
I am pretty sure Taylor Swift got into a copyright dispute with someone over Shake It Off, and the judge threw it out because the lyrics in her song and the original weren't considered worthy of copyright protection. I'm pretty sure it was over the chorus. Which was forgettable shitty.
"Players gonna play, haters gonna hate"
Such original, much intellectual property, 100% worthy of protection.
-
Why should one man live off another man's labor? Do we really need 1000 takes on Sherlock Holmes?
Are you saying that there were no detective stories before Sherlock Holmes? Believe it or not, the Ancient Greeks pretty much invented every major plot device out there and everything since then has been a rehash.
-
Why should one man live off another man's labor? Do we really need 1000 takes on Sherlock Holmes?
Are you saying that there were no detective stories before Sherlock Holmes? Believe it or not, the Ancient Greeks pretty much invented every major plot device out there and everything since then has been a rehash.
I suggest Y'ALL PAY THE FUCK UP!
-
Should the McDonald's Golden Arches copyright expire?
The Golden Arches are protected under trademark law, not copyright law, which is similar but has a few key differences. McDonald's rightfully should be able to own that trademark for as long as they actively use and defend that trademark.
-
Also, did people forget about good old capitalism? It doesn't just apply to physical objects, it also applies to more abstract stuff like art. If everyone created similar stuff you'd have a large supply of similar stuff with loads of competition within this supply of similar stuff. That's not very profitable. The more profitable option is to either create something different that is in low supply (but that hopefully have, or will gain, a high "demand") or to improve the quality of your specific samey stuff. Profit can mean either money, fame or influence or whatever your goal is as a creator. There is an art-economy and it runs on more than just money. Copyrights are basically patents, they ensure that you can profit off of your own idea so that you have a reason to create it in the first place. But once you've profited off of your work it turns from a security to a bonus. From this point out it actually disincentivizes you from creating a new work. As long as there is a demand you have monopoly on a part of the art-market. Since there is no competition within this part of the art market you don't have to work to improve or renew new iterations within the copyright.
Going into the public domain also pretty much ensures that the work will be put up on the internet and be accessible to anyone for free. There's no point in straight-up copying other's work, and there's going to be an abundance of fan-works with small changes available for free too. It's the ultimate supply, so there's no room for competition and no profit to be gained. People will still want some physical copies, and that'll be handled fine by publishers: It's just distributing the art to the people who might be interested in it. What is the point of creating some work of art if it can't be appreciated? Might even be translated or revised so that any language used in the work keeps up with society so that new meanings to words don't change the meaning of the story. The distributors do work to provide physical copies, so it's fair game that they profit.
-
Capitalism usually doesn't work very well for incentivizing creation of original art. Capitalism aside though, original art was still made looong before copyright laws.
-
Why should one man live off another man's labor? Do we really need 1000 takes on Sherlock Holmes?
Are you saying that there were no detective stories before Sherlock Holmes?
No, I'm not saying that, and no I don't believe they invented every single plot device. Why? Because its not true, albeit it is a cute Western look at history.
-
Capitalism usually doesn't work very well for incentivizing creation of original art.
I disagree. There are always customers out there who are looking for something new or different. Not to mention the fact that there are always artists out there who think that they can do someone else's style better.
-
Capitalism usually doesn't work very well for incentivizing creation of original art. Capitalism aside though, original art was still made looong before copyright laws.
Capitalism sure does encourage just copying other (successful) works of art, until the art-market is saturated. Same thing with the physical market: People won't generally create new technology and products if they can just copy something popular that isn't saturated. But that's seen as good in the physical market, because it drives people to try to make improvements to the product. The best product will be the most popular and will become accessible to more people, which generates profit for the business and might improve quality of life for people. I think this can also apply to the art-market, a saturation of zombie movies will push creators to stand out in the competition and create the best zombie movie ever. It generates profit to the creator and it gives people a really enjoyable zombie-movie. Sure it might not be very original, but is originality really that much more important than quality? Is it better to have three completely different but mediocre works of art, or three similar works of art that are mediocre, good and phenomenal. We can drop the first two similar works of art as they are just inferior to the phenomenal work of art. Now we have the question: Is one phenomenal work of art better than 3 different but mediocre works of art? The answer is obviously: it depends on the context and the society they exist in. The phenomenal work of art might not really be very important while one or two or all of the original works of art handle really important subjects. Or the phenomenal work of art handles a very important subject while the other are unimportant. And we don't just consume art to learn important ideas or meanings, sometimes (most times) we just want to relax and have fun or be engrossed.
-
Well, eventually the market does become saturated, but usually that takes quite a while and it's a problem that is to an extent caused by capitalism anyways. Also I don't think it leads to higher quality art, it just leads to more pandering and better marketing.
-
Why should one man live off another man's labor? Do we really need 1000 takes on Sherlock Holmes?
Are you saying that there were no detective stories before Sherlock Holmes?
No, I'm not saying that...
Oh, then you agree that Sherlock Holmes is just another take on someone else's detective?
-
Well, eventually the market does become saturated, but usually that takes quite a while and it's a problem that is to an extent caused by capitalism anyways. Also I don't think it leads to higher quality art, it just leads to more pandering and better marketing.
Pandering to who? The customers? In what way?
And better marketing has always been a driving force in both physical products and art, copyrights don't really affect marketing. Having exclusive rights to something is not going to make it popular, or help it get popular. It'll help you get it popular before anyone else is allowed to make it popular, which is why I support it for the life time of the original creator and in case the original creator suddenly dies it can be passed to someone else for a while.
-
Well, eventually the market does become saturated, but usually that takes quite a while and it's a problem that is to an extent caused by capitalism anyways. Also I don't think it leads to higher quality art, it just leads to more pandering and better marketing.
Pandering to who? The customers? In what way?
What do you mean "in what way"? Look around.
And better marketing has always been a driving force in both physical products and art, copyrights don't really affect marketing.
I thought our conversation was about whether or not capitalism incentivizes creation of original art, not copyright laws. I already said I support copyright laws, even for a while after the creator's death.
-
What do you mean "in what way"? Look around.
I am looking around. That doesn't answer my question.
I thought our conversation was about whether or not capitalism incentivizes creation of original art, not copyright laws. I already said I support copyright laws, even for a while after the creator's death.
The discussion overall is whether or not copyrights need to last so long. I argued that art is subject to capitalism and that it would mean that creators would be incentivized to improve quality or push for originality without copyright laws. You then argued that it would rather lead to an increased effort in marketing, and I countered that argument by arguing that even with copyright laws there will necessarily be a large effort put into marketing. In fact, precisely because of it's originality it is very uncertain how well liked it will be by the populace and the populace in turn might not know if the art is worth their time and money. Because of the insecurities involved in original ideas marketing is more important than ever.
-
The lyrics of Happy Birthday to You should have stayed copyrighted FOREVER!
-
What do you mean "in what way"? Look around.
I am looking around. That doesn't answer my question.
You can't see how capitalism and profiteering has lead to creation of unoriginal art that panders to the lowest common denominator?
The discussion overall is whether or not copyrights need to last so long. I argued that art is subject to capitalism and that it would mean that creators would be incentivized to improve quality or push for originality without copyright laws. You then argued that it would rather lead to an increased effort in marketing, and I countered that argument by arguing that even with copyright laws there will necessarily be a large effort put into marketing.
See where the issue is? What do copyright laws have to do with this? It doesn't contradict what I said.
In fact, precisely because of it's originality it is very uncertain how well liked it will be by the populace and the populace in turn might not know if the art is worth their time and money. Because of the insecurities involved in original ideas marketing is more important than ever.
I don't know what that has to do with my post, I think there has been a misunderstanding.
-
panders to the lowest common denominator?
I can't see what you mean by pandering here. Please explain, as I've already asked. I know what the word means, just not how you're applying it. Who or what is the lowest common denominator, and in what way is it being pandered to?
See where the issue is? What do copyright laws have to do with this? It doesn't contradict what I said.
The topic of this whole thread is copyright laws. What doesn't copyright laws have to do with this? And what issue are you talking about? You're being awfully vague.
And no, it doesn't contradict what you said. Just like I never said it did ;).
I don't know what that has to do with my post, I think there has been a misunderstanding.
I said that because the creation of art is dictated by a capitalistic system, original art can and will be created without the need for copyright laws, just like it has been for the hundreds and thousands of years that art has existed before copyrights. You then said that capitalism creates a focus on marketing, to which I responded that that holds true even with copyrights, meaning that your point (on marketing) doesn't refute any point I made.
-
I can't see what you mean by pandering here. Please explain, as I've already asked. I know what the word means, just not how you're applying it. Who or what is the lowest common denominator, and in what way is it being pandered to?
Major companies mostly fund, support and promote art that is safe and uninspired, created with the purpose to cater to as broad a demographic as possible, and largely homogenized. This is most evident in Hollywood, and in Top 40 pop.
The topic of this whole thread is copyright laws. What doesn't copyright laws have to do with this? And what issue are you talking about? You're being awfully vague.
The thread is about copyright laws, but that's not what I was discussing with you in particular. I said I don't think capitalism really has a net positive effect in incentivizing and promoting original art. And I added that usually it's not the best art that comes out on top, but the art with the broadest appeal and best marketing behind it. Copyright laws are a different subject.
I said that because the creation of art is dictated by a capitalistic system, original art can and will be created without the need for copyright laws, just like it has been for the hundreds and thousands of years that art has existed before copyrights. You then said that capitalism creates a focus on marketing, to which I responded that that holds true even with copyrights, meaning that your point (on marketing) doesn't refute any point I made.
That's not why I mentioned marketing. I didn't claim that you need copyright laws to have original art either. Actually I claimed the opposite. I just don't think capitalism is the main reason they're not needed.
-
Why should one man live off another man's labor? Do we really need 1000 takes on Sherlock Holmes?
Are you saying that there were no detective stories before Sherlock Holmes?
No, I'm not saying that...
Oh, then you agree that Sherlock Holmes is just another take on someone else's detective?
Of course.
-
Major companies mostly fund, support and promote art that is safe and uninspired, created with the purpose to cater to as broad a demographic as possible, and largely homogenized. This is most evident in Hollywood, and in Top 40 pop.
Yes. So? They're making some art that can reach out to as many people as possible, influencing the greatest number of people and giving them what they want. They usually also try to have good effects, music and acting, which is an improvement to the quality. And again, this is not something that will be solved by extending copyrights. Because as you say it's the big companies, the one's with loads of funds and that already will have a popular story or franchise copyrighted, that can do this and profit. So I don't see how this ties into copyrights. And that is the only thing big companies CAN do. Their projects are too big to fail, originality and niches is a risk that could lead to bankruptcy. Quality costs money, big companies have money, small companies don't have that much money. If big companies didn't go for maximum quality, no one can go for maximum quality. Improved quality can often mean improved immersion which can lead to better emotional responses in the audience.
Also, is something being original and different enough to call it "good"? What you're saying is that because companies make art that the majority of people will like and because it focuses on what people think makes it good, that art is bad. That's basically saying that everything that all people can agree on is good, is in fact bad.
The thread is about copyright laws, but that's not what I was discussing with you in particular. I said I don't think capitalism really has a net positive effect in incentivizing and promoting original art. And I added that usually it's not the best art that comes out on top, but the art with the broadest appeal and best marketing behind it. Copyright laws are a different subject.
Well I was discussing copyright laws in particular, or rather how they function in capitalism.
That's not why I mentioned marketing. I didn't claim that you need copyright laws to have original art either. Actually I claimed the opposite. I just don't think capitalism is the main reason they're not needed.
Then why don't you explain what current influences on art prohibits the need for copyright laws? I didn't say that capitalism is the main reason for why copyrights don't need to be extended. I just said that capitalism is a reason for why copyright laws don't need to be extended. Capitalism WILL lead to new and original ideas, as well as an improvement in quality. Is it the BEST system for improving quality and promoting originality? Who fucking knows. That wasn't part of the point I was making. The point I was making is that because the art-market is influenced by capitalistic effects and forces, extended copyrights is not necessarily going to promote more originality (and if it does, is the original art going to be good?) and it won't promote more quality.
-
Here's something I know, I'm not sure if it applies to the discussion or not. Some new author will come out with a great, well written book that is very popular. Then they'll do a second and maybe a third. What I've observed is that after that, they tend to start putting out inferior work and using their reputation to sell it instead of quality.
-
Here's something I know, I'm not sure if it applies to the discussion or not. Some new author will come out with a great, well written book that is very popular. Then they'll do a second and maybe a third. What I've observed is that after that, they tend to start putting out inferior work and using their reputation to sell it instead of quality.
That's true (not for all authors). Now imagine if people could write their own iterations to a story. They can use the characters, places, the whole world and write their own story in a franchise that starts at a point they decide. There's both positives and negatives to this. Should it be possible for a fan to copy a whole book but change the ending because they didn't like the ending and then sell it? That'd go from breaking copyright laws to plagiarism for most of the work, so either they'd have to give full credit to the other author for the copied part, or they could just not copy anything and instead only write an ending and then clarify in what part of the original book this alternate ending picks up.
Imagine if pretty much no one bought the original work because of the really shitty ending, but everyone bought the fan-version because of it's great ending. Does the original author deserve profit from the fan version, and how much of it, and for what reasons? Again, if the fan version straight up copies most of the book it's basically a lot of "stolen" effort that is choosing the right words, pacing, scene, chronology etc., so it would be reasonable to see the original author as at least a co-author to the fan-version. But what if the fan-version has the same story and events and so on, but chooses different words and pacing and so on?
-
Yes. So? They're making some art that can reach out to as many people as possible, influencing the greatest number of people and giving them what they want. They usually also try to have good effects, music and acting, which is an improvement to the quality.
It's not a bad thing that there is art that appeals to a mass audience. What is a bad thing is that it becomes so generic and commercialized that it loses all originality, authenticity and power. By making safe stuff to appeal to everyone, you lose your ability to actually making something great. You can't appeal to everyone without pandering to the lowest common denominator, or restricting artists creatively. What's even worse is that the companies that have the money and influence to do that end up monopolizing the trade and making it really hard for independent artists to become known. As for "good music and acting", that's very debatable.
And again, this is not something that will be solved by extending copyrights.
I explicitly said it wouldn't.
So I don't see how this ties into copyrights.
It doesn't, that's what I've been trying to say...
Quality costs money, big companies have money, small companies don't have that much money. If big companies didn't go for maximum quality, no one can go for maximum quality. Improved quality can often mean improved immersion which can lead to better emotional responses in the audience.
Why do you think better art necessarily costs more money? If it's an action movie then yes, but great art can be (and often is) made with very little money.
Also, is something being original and different enough to call it "good"?
No, it's just two of the things that contribute to it being good. Otherwise art quickly gets boring.
What you're saying is that because companies make art that the majority of people will like and because it focuses on what people think makes it good, that art is bad. That's basically saying that everything that all people can agree on is good, is in fact bad.
That is not what I said. Pandering to mass audiences and just appealing to them are two different things. Besides, what usually ends up happening is that instead of everyone finding it great, they just find it ok, because that's what happens when you try to appeal to everyone, instead of making something that can resonate to people on an individual level.
Well I was discussing copyright laws in particular, or rather how they function in capitalism.
You said that without copyright laws, original art would still be made, because of capitalism. I agree that it would, but not because of capitalism. That's what I've been saying.
Then why don't you explain what current influences on art prohibits the need for copyright laws?
I did in a previous post in detail.
Capitalism WILL lead to new and original ideas, as well as an improvement in quality.
Art isn't like physical products. It's not like a smartphone that gets better specs. Capitalism doesn't necessarily lead to an improvement in quality. Actually, as I've been explaining, it often does the opposite. And new and original ideas aren't usually the product of capitalism. They usually spring up, and then they gain traction, and then a company picks up on it and they start reproducing it over and over again until the next trend. It's true that a company can't do the same thing forever and turn a profit, but that new thing usually doesn't come from these big companies first.
-
It's not a bad thing that there is art that appeals to a mass audience. What is a bad thing is that it becomes so generic and commercialized that it loses all originality, authenticity and power. By making safe stuff to appeal to everyone, you lose your ability to actually making something great. You can't appeal to everyone without pandering to the lowest common denominator, or restricting artists creatively. What's even worse is that the companies that have the money and influence to do that end up monopolizing the trade and making it really hard for independent artists to become known. As for "good music and acting", that's very debatable.
Originality does not cost money. EVERYONE has the resources necessary to be original. And I do think we can agree that on general, big shot company movies will have higher quality of visuals, music and acting compared to smaller budget productions. There's no thing as "the companies that have the money and influence to do that (be original and bold)", because everyone can be. The only thing money will get you is quality, and technology. If you want your movie to be experienced in an original or creative way (3D etc.) you might have to put up with some money. And because it costs loads of money (at least in the beginning to develop) these creative ways of experiencing movies are often tried on unoriginal but popular/safe stories.
I explicitly said it wouldn't.
I know. But you responded to my post, where that is the kind of point I made.
It doesn't, that's what I've been trying to say...
Then you shouldn't had responded to a post trying to discuss copyrights ;)
Why do you think better art necessarily costs more money? If it's an action movie then yes, but great art can be (and often is) made with very little money.
With quality I mean everything that is measurable. Fidelity, visuals, precision, acting, audio, effects. Quality isn't necessarily the overall goodness of the art, but the overall goodness of the work put into making the art. It doesn't necessarily make it a better piece of art, but it makes it easier to appreciate. What good is a piece of art if you can't appreciate it because of bad quality?
No, it's just two of the things that contribute to it being good. Otherwise art quickly gets boring.
Yes.
That is not what I said. Pandering to mass audiences and just appealing to them are two different things. Besides, what usually ends up happening is that instead of everyone finding it great, they just find it ok, because that's what happens when you try to appeal to everyone, instead of making something that can resonate to people on an individual level. [/quote
What do you count as pandering and what is appealing then? That's what I've been asking for a while now, even if I didn't spell it out clearly: What do you mean by pandering?
You said that without copyright laws, original art would still be made, because of capitalism. I agree that it would, but not because of capitalism. That's what I've been saying.
Well, I'm pretty sure that's just wrong. Capitalism will lead to originality. I don't know exactly how much, but you said it yourself: without originality the consumers will get bored. Demand will increase for originality, and the art industry will deliver at their own pace.
I did in a previous post in detail.
Please refer me to it.
Art isn't like physical products. It's not like a smartphone that gets better specs. Capitalism doesn't necessarily lead to an improvement in quality. Actually, as I've been explaining, it often does the opposite. And new and original ideas aren't usually the product of capitalism. They usually spring up, and then they gain traction, and then a company picks up on it and they start reproducing it over and over again until the next trend. It's true that a company can't do the same thing forever and turn a profit, but that new thing usually doesn't come from these big companies first.
Capitalism does lead to an improvement in quality (as I'm using the word; to basically make it easier to appreciate the art for what it is). It's observable in every art industry.
New original and interesting ideas springing up and gaining traction? That's just the art-equivalent of entrepreneurship. Why do they gain traction? Because people learn about the art and start demanding it.
Capitalism does not mean "muh big companies does everything". And independent single person making something themselves and distributing it to the public themselves is also part of capitalism.
-
Originality does not cost money. EVERYONE has the resources necessary to be original.
But... That's what I've been saying...
And I do think we can agree that on general, big shot company movies will have higher quality of visuals, music and acting compared to smaller budget productions.
No they don't. Unless you're talking about visual effects, or if it's a really small budget production. Many small budget produtions have amazing visuals, great acting and sometimes music too. Also I don't know why you're only focused on movies.
There's no thing as "the companies that have the money and influence to do that (be original and bold)"
I did not say that. You're not reading my posts very carefully. You added a parenthesis that had no reason to be there.
The only thing money will get you is quality, and technology.
Why do you think money will get you quality?
If you want your movie to be experienced in an original or creative way (3D etc.)
Just a side note, 3D is neither creative or original.
you might have to put up with some money.
Yes, I already said that for certain genres of art that require a lot of money, like a big sci fi adventure or something.
And because it costs loads of money (at least in the beginning to develop) these creative ways of experiencing movies are often tried on unoriginal but popular/safe stories.
These are not "creative ways", they've been around for long enough that it's gotten old already. It's not interesting if the "creative" and "original" aspect of all these movies is the same.
I explicitly said it wouldn't.
I know. But you responded to my post, where that is the kind of point I made.
It doesn't, that's what I've been trying to say...
Then you shouldn't had responded to a post trying to discuss copyrights ;)
Again, you should read my posts more carefully, because I already explained to you exactly what my objection with your post was, and it's not about whether or not we need copyright laws.
With quality I mean everything that is measurable. Fidelity, visuals, precision, acting, audio, effects.
How is "acting" or "visuals" something measurable? Of all these things, the only things that are ACTUALLY measurable is fidelity, and to an extent the audio and the effects.
Quality isn't necessarily the overall goodness of the art, but the overall goodness of the work put into making the art.
That definition is new to me. What is the "goodness of the work put into making the art"? Is the directing and writing of a film not work put into making it? I think you're trying to say that you consider "quality" to be an art work being competent in its most technical aspects. Which isn't really what I consider the quality of art.
It doesn't necessarily make it a better piece of art, but it makes it easier to appreciate. What good is a piece of art if you can't appreciate it because of bad quality?
That is only really applicable if the "quality" is distractingly bad. Although really great technical competence can be very impressive sometimes and greatly enhance the work, but that's not very common.
What do you count as pandering and what is appealing then? That's what I've been asking for a while now, even if I didn't spell it out clearly: What do you mean by pandering?
pander:
1.To act as a go-between or liaison in sexual intrigues; function as a procurer.
2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses: "He refused to pander to nostalgia and escapism" (New York Times).
Well, I'm pretty sure that's just wrong. Capitalism will lead to originality. I don't know exactly how much, but you said it yourself: without originality the consumers will get bored. Demand will increase for originality, and the art industry will deliver at their own pace.
That's not exactly how it happens usually. What happens is that the original thing happens first, and then the industry adjusts. Original ideas would come anyways.
I did in a previous post in detail.
Please refer me to it.
Guess I didn't, but I thought I did, oops. I think I thought that post out but for some reason I didn't make it or I forgot to post it or something. My bad. Well, in short, there are always many artists who are just driven to innovate, regardless of the profit they can make, just because they want to. It's been so even before capitalism was a thing, and profit not having anything to do with it is evidenced by all the people who try to innovate or have tried to innovate, even though in many cases they know it probably leads to less profit, instead of more.
Capitalism does lead to an improvement in quality (as I'm using the word; to basically make it easier to appreciate the art for what it is). It's observable in every art industry.
I can only agree to this if you are referring to stuff like CGI, and fidelity, and whatnot.
New original and interesting ideas springing up and gaining traction? That's just the art-equivalent of entrepreneurship. Why do they gain traction? Because people learn about the art and start demanding it.
Yeah, they gain traction because people learn about it and start demanding it. What's the point? I don't see why it's the art equivalent of enterpreneurship either.
Capitalism does not mean "muh big companies does everything". And independent single person making something themselves and distributing it to the public themselves is also part of capitalism.
Going by that logic you can attribute literally anything that happens in the world to capitalism, or any other system people are under, because the people are part of that system. What I'm saying is that a system that revolves around maximizing profit isn't a particularly good basis for creation of original art.
-
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/photographer-being-sued-by-a-monkey-over-its-selfie-is-now-broke/
-
More evidence of a world gone mad!
-
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/photographer-being-sued-by-a-monkey-over-its-selfie-is-now-broke/
Don't know about that, iflscience is very unreliable.
-
Is NPR? https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/12/550417823/-animal-rights-advocates-photographer-compromise-over-ownership-of-monkey-selfie
Anyway,it's a ridiculous abuse of copyright.
-
Is NPR? https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/12/550417823/-animal-rights-advocates-photographer-compromise-over-ownership-of-monkey-selfie
Anyway,it's a ridiculous abuse of copyright.
I don't really know what NPR is. But yeah it's silly. Will the monkey get royalties now?
-
It was not going PETA's way so they decided to settle.
-
It was not going PETA's way so they decided to settle.
Did the monkey get its cut?
-
It was not going PETA's way so they decided to settle.
Did the monkey get its cut?
Yes! The photographer agree to donate 10% of the money earned from the "selfie" to preservation of that monkey's species. PETA only wants to settle because they want a lower court to overturn the ruling that animals can't hold copyrights. The photographer wants to settle because PETA was destroying his career and bankrupting him.
-
It was not going PETA's way so they decided to settle.
Did the monkey get its cut?
Yes! The photographer agree to donate 10% of the money earned from the "selfie" to preservation of that monkey's species. PETA only wants to settle because they want a lower court to overturn the ruling that animals can't hold copyrights. The photographer wants to settle because PETA was destroying his career and bankrupting him.
That's bullshit, the photo is the intellectual property of that particular monkey, NOT any random monkey looking for handouts! The money should go to that monkey! I demand justice now!
Anyways, why are PETA such weirdos? Why do they think it's important for animals to hold copyrights? That makes no sense whatsoever.
-
If an animal can own something, then they should have more rights, I suppose.
-
If an animal can own something, then they should have more rights, I suppose.
That's a pretty upside down way to think about stuff...
-
It was not going PETA's way so they decided to settle.
Did the monkey get its cut?
Yes! The photographer agree to donate 10% of the money earned from the "selfie" to preservation of that monkey's species.
Actually he had already been donating 10% of the money for a few months. He agreed to bump it up to 25% to settle the suit.
PETA only wants to settle because they want a lower court to overturn the ruling that animals can't hold copyrights.
But the real question is should those animal held copyrights last forever?
-
Everyone needs to hurry up and copyright their selfies so they can own them 4evar!
-
If a monkey earns income from a copyright, does it have to pay income tax?
-
They do. It's classified under monkey business.
I apologize for that.
-
At what age are monkeys allowed to vote, drink and drive in the US? How much is 18, 21 and 16 in monkey years?
-
It was not going PETA's way so they decided to settle.
Did the monkey get its cut?
SCG stole his case of bananas and made the cover story that her"friend" gave them to her. How convenient.
-
For example, we have held the mantle since Johnston for The Flat Earth Society. We will hold it until the temples fall, and the skies with them weep. It just makes the symbol.