Hard News: The Casino
578 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 15 16 17 18 19 … 24 Newer→ Last
-
See Tim O'Reilly's tweet about his business attempting to cosy-up to Amazon re Kindle.
-
When disks got over 1MB, I quit relying on mine altogether. Having a memory is so 20th century.
I remember well my friend Paul Jeffreys at Oceania Audio telling me circa 86 that he would likely never fill the 1Mb hard drive he'd just acquired.
I was in awe.
-
When disks got over 1MB, I quit relying on mine altogether. Having a memory is so 20th century.
I remember well my friend Paul Jeffreys at Oceania Audio telling me circa 86 that he would likely never fill the 1Mb hard drive he'd just acquired.
I was in awe.
-
When disks got over 1MB, I quit relying on mine altogether. Having a memory is so 20th century.
I remember well my friend Paul Jeffreys at Oceania Audio telling me circa 86 that he would likely never fill the 1Mb hard drive he'd just acquired.
I was in awe.
-
oh..Singapore's 85mbs Broadband is not perfect I see....
-
Tim O' also has been pointing people to Neil Postman's remarkable words from 1990 with the title of "Informing Ourselves To Death".
(I am struck with the same thought I had when reviewing Bruce Sterling's Webstock speech...Didn't anybody record it?)
-
that he would likely never fill the 1Mb hard drive he'd just acquired.
I was in awe.
vacuous!
-
Having a memory is so 20th century.
I'm going to have to use that.
-
I'm going to have to use that.
Isn't it great that you don't even have to ask?
-
Isn't it great that you don't even have to ask?
It was my way of asking, actually. But the material on this website is copyrigthed by Public Address, so ironically in theory it's not you I'd have to apply to for permission. (Drop me a line, though, if you like.)
-
It's not ironic. It's how I like it. It's my way of paying Russell back for making it all possible. He can put it in a book and make a buck, and I'll be glad if he did. Or through ads or however he thinks might work. I'm not in it for the money.
-
When all this openess, particualry in terms of networks is apparently so good, Radio NZ interviewee identifies the use of closed & proprietary networks to huck ebooks for the Kindle.
Also mentioned is Google's threat to end access to premium youtube content for licensiing reasons.
-
Hamish is actually a regular commentator on technology for Mora's afternoon show. I introduced him at an event once, when we were both gummint employees, as NZ's only stand-up technologist. I just wish he was on someone else's show, because I can't stand Mora.
-
If I make a perfect copy of an artwork, stroke for stroke, but leave the original in place, I have stolen nothing, yet I have broken the law. I've infringed the copyright of the artist and, if I try to sell it, I commit fraud. But I have stolen nothing.
You have not stolen the physical artefact that is the result of the artist's endeavour, but you have shown contempt for the artist and in doing so, devalued the artist's process, because you haven't had to go through that process to make the original. What the buyer pays for when they purchase an original artwork is not just the painting itself. The monetary value ascribed to the painting recognises the value of the process. While every artist stands on the shoulders of others, every artist also constructs their own, unique combination of intellectual, emotional, spiritual stimuli which they draw on to create. The artist's ability to create depends on having the time and energy to acquire and use those stimuli. There are many necessary "failures" made on the path to making good work. The price placed on artworks (and the big cut taken by galleries) reflects both scarcity value and process value.
And the difference between your copy and the original - well, viewing a reproduction in a book or on the net is NOT the same as viewing an original or living with it.
This is, roughly, intellectual property for an artist - it's a lot more than "an idea" that you can't own. Putting the paint on the canvas is the last 10% of the process. It is as close to Ben's analogy of a factory as I can get.
-
You have not stolen the physical artefact that is the result of the artist's endeavour, but you have shown contempt for the artist and in doing so, devalued the artist's process, because you haven't had to go through that process to make the original.
1) it's still not theft.
2) How is the artist or his process devalued? If it had value in the first place, how does it lose value?
3) If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, where's the contempt?What the buyer pays for when they purchase an original artwork is not just the painting itself.
Actually it is, plus (in some cases) a provenance document outlining its origin. Purchase of an artwork is just that, not any of the intangibles.
The monetary value ascribed to the painting recognises the value of the process.
Perhaps it does, but you don't purchase the process, nor is it covered by copyright.
While every artist stands on the shoulders of others, every artist also constructs their own, unique combination of intellectual, emotional, spiritual stimuli which they draw on to create.
Hmmm, Warhol. And yet I'm still failing to see how any of this is devalued by making a copy.
The artist's ability to create depends on having the time and energy to acquire and use those stimuli. There are many necessary "failures" made on the path to making good work.
If I'm buying art, I'm buying only the success, not the failures.
The price placed on artworks (and the big cut taken by galleries) reflects both scarcity value and process value.
Scarcity? It's exactly the same as it was before a copy was made. Artist A made 1 picture. That is unique. If Copyist A makes a copy, there is still only 1 picture made by Artist A.
Process value? That maybe why you buy an artwork, but it's not why I do it. A crappy picture may have exactly the same process work as a masterpiece by the same artist - which has more value? Which will get a higher price?
And the difference between your copy and the original - well, viewing a reproduction in a book or on the net is NOT the same as viewing an original or living with it.
Absolutely, but as long as I know it's a copy, and don't pretend it's an original, I might be happy with it, especially if I can't afford the original. That's why I only have a print of the Mona Lisa on my wall.
This is, roughly, intellectual property for an artist - it's a lot more than "an idea" that you can't own. Putting the paint on the canvas is the last 10% of the process. It is as close to Ben's analogy of a factory as I can get.
And it's not very close. A factory exists for one thing - mass production of the same item or items. An artist is at the other end of the spectrum - producing (in general) single, unique items.
It's not the process that costs the money - it's the object itself (that's why they're called objets d'art ). The artist retains not even the process, but only the technique, by which s/he hopes to make further unique objects.
Case in point - Michael Smither started doing screen prints (reproducible items) specifically because he realised that his original works had become too pricey for ordinary people to afford. Same artist, different technique, but is the creative process any different? Is the creative effort really that much less? The physical effort might be, or it might not - that's down to the individual artist, really.
It's not wrong to ascribe a lot of emotional reasons to why you purchase a particular artwork, and your post describes your reasons clearly, but those will be different for each buyer. You need to be clear as to what's on sale, and it's only the object.
-
And it's not very close. A factory exists for one thing - mass production of the same item or items. An artist is at the other end of the spectrum - producing (in general) single, unique items.
I don't know if you got the analogy. The artist is the person who both designed the good to be mass-produced, and owns shares in the only factory allowed to make it. They don't take exception to anyone buying their widgets, trading in them etc. All they take exception to is anyone else being able to make them, thus cutting them out of the profit loop.
I repeat that the analogy was not meant to prove anything. It's just an idea to help people to look at it from another angle. Lateral thinking, basically, coming at it from perhaps a Marxist angle.
If it was my idea (I don't know and I don't care), I formally state as the artist that everyone may use it however they like, but Russell actually owns the expression of it here.
It seems to me that my analogy is simply from copyright to patent. Which are both IP anyway. So it's not really that illuminating, except maybe in pointing out how deeply capitalistic copyright is.
-
You need to be clear as to what's on sale, and it's only the object.
That's not true, at least for art.
It's possible to make an exact copy of a piece of art, using the same materials and techniques.
The artwork done by a famous artist will still fetch a lot more than the exact copy by a not famous artist.
Pieces of art and their value are more than the objects themselves. They have a history, they have value in the market over and above the intrinsic value of the objects themselves.
-
The monetary value ascribed to the painting recognises the value of the process. While every artist stands on the shoulders of others, every artist also constructs their own, unique combination of intellectual, emotional, spiritual stimuli which they draw on to create. The artist's ability to create depends on having the time and energy to acquire and use those stimuli. There are many necessary "failures" made on the path to making good work. The price placed on artworks (and the big cut taken by galleries) reflects both scarcity value and process value.
Thanks, Kerry, beautifully explained.
as long as I know it's a copy, and don't pretend it's an original, I might be happy with it
Mark, isn't the point with digital that you can't tell the difference - with audiovisual content, especially?
-
That's not true, at least for art.
Why not? The rest of your post had little relevance to your opening line, so I'm still mystified.
It's possible to make an exact copy of a piece of art, using the same materials and techniques.
I think I said that, which is what Kerry objected to.
The artwork done by a famous artist will still fetch a lot more than the exact copy by a not famous artist.<quote>
Umm, I think I pretty much said that too.
<quote>Pieces of art and their value are more than the objects themselves. They have a history, they have value in the market over and above the intrinsic value of the objects themselves.
All right, how much for just the history then? ;-)
Look, a brand new object has little history. It will sell for whatever the market will offer.
A 500 year old object has a history (it may not be an exciting one, of course) but it, too, will sell for whatever the market will offer.
The new object may sell for more than the old object, depending on the artist and/or the history. There is no such thing as intrinsic value, in dollar terms, of a piece of art. Is Damien Hirst's skull thingy worth millions because it's made of platinum and diamonds (each of which also have no intrinsic value, only what the market will offer) or because it's made by Damien Hirst?
Costing £14 million to produce, the work went on display at the White Cube gallery in London at an asking price of £50 million, which would have been the highest price ever paid for a single work by a living artist
Now if you're talking about cultural value, that's a different ball of wax, and some may be prepared to spend money to preserve it.
But you can't buy history. You can know it, you can publish it, but it's metadata, in reference to an art work. It has no value in itself and it's not for sale.
-
Mark, isn't the point with digital that you can't tell the difference - with audiovisual content, especially?
Yep. But back to the original point I made months ago, it's still NOT theft.
It's against the law but it is not theft.
-
It's against the law but it is not theft.
And some of us are still a bit bemused that taking away somebody's livelyhood should not be regarded as theft. But do carry on.
-
Russell actually owns the expression of it here
Didn't Russell post last year that in fact each poster retains copyright of our own words, and Public Address owns all the stuff around it?
Doesn't seem much point in me searching for the word "copyright" to find the reference. :)
-
And some of us are still a bit bemused that taking away somebody's livelyhood should not be regarded as theft. But do carry on.
Bemused you may remain, but that doesn't alter the law.
-
Bemused you may remain, but that doesn't alter the law.
But surely theft is not just that the law says theft is? Aren't we allowed to broaden the defenition (or at least discuss broadening it) to account for technological change, and for ethical considerations that the law may not adequately address?
The analogy is pretty simple: I steal a CD ni a shop, I'm a thief. I download the same tracks and burn them in the exact same order on a CD, and it's not theft. Surely you see the disconnect?
-
Look, a brand new object has little history. It will sell for whatever the market will offer. A 500 year old object has a history...
A better concept than history might be "context". Recent work like the Hirst skull is nonetheless embedded in a fine art tradition that brings huge baggage about value.
Mark, you know I agree that the word "theft" does not literally apply, but how would you address the point that others have raised about the impact of easy replication and distribution on society's ability to fund creative livelihoods?
Sure, markets based on scarcity and expensive distribution or production entry barriers no longer work. There will be far more quantity and a bigger range of quality - but I can't picture the human creative process as becoming completely amateur or less expensive to pursue.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.