|
From: | Tyler Romeo |
Subject: | Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Update on freeyourstuff.cc (content/user liberation) |
Date: | Wed, 11 May 2016 07:09:39 -0400 |
That doesn't enter into a discussion on ethics.
Pretty close to nobody is doing that. What most artists in most
disciplines do is have someone distribute copies of their works. These
distributors typically request money for those copies. Some of the
distributors go further, and chastise anyone who has obtained copies
outside of their controlled distribution. In some industries the artist
doesn't really make any money from this (music is an example of this),
and in some industries it's even unclear who the artists are (film). But
in *very* few industries are any artists today making some piece of art
that they then try to sell.
There are varying degrees of copyright "protection". Some of them are
lesser evils in today's society (the GPL), but most of them are not.
Copyright should not exist, but it necessarily exists due to other
societal problems. Any copyright that isn't constructed to fix those
societal problems, and even worse if it adds to them (ND/NC/etc.) has no
ethical virtue.
You continue to put artists on a pedestal as "creators", yet you
belittle their art into mere "content". As for "profit" as in financial
income, I don't think that is some creator given birthright. If you
can't make money off your art, then you need to deal with that. If
society doesn't value art, that's society's prerogative, but in most
countries there is funding for art, and there are means of income as
an artist if you are creative enough (and hopefully, as an artist, you
are creative). If you can't find them, then perhaps you should get a
job that benefits society in a better way.
"Regulating" here is another word for "controlling". And the reason for
controlling someone is to divide and subjugate them -- to oppress them.
Government should not "be allowed" to do anything that limits my
freedom any more than other people should.
> That is a *vast* oversimplification of the situation, and really
> does not make any sense at all with regards to my argument. Are
> you trying to say that because something as simple as the C note
> shouldn't be patentable (a completely different concept than
> copyright), that an author shouldn't be able to profit from their
> original creation for a brief period of time?
We're emailing a discussions list. Did you really want me to explain all
of economy in an email? I'm actually too busy working on free art at the
moment, and thought that my point was clear enough.
This applies to any law about anything. Law is just theology + magic.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |