Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think the laissez-faire attitude, or the abdication of our responsability to look after content creators if you will, is in fact tantamount to advocating for it, but at the very least hardly innocent and non-ideological, and that you'd do well to both examine your language (we all keep going back to your pronouncements that "nobody is guaranteed a livelyhood" and "you must adapt or die" for a reason) at the same time as you rightly attack the maximalists for theirs ("theft", "piracy" and so forth).
You read me as you want to, Giovanni.
No one is guaranteed a livelihood in any endeavour that is not waged employment. That's part of being your own boss, taking that risk and owning whatever rewards come from it. I'm (more or less) my own boss because of the freedom it gives me to do things that an employer might frown upon. Like art, for one (although PAS seems to leave me little time for that ;-)
But in black and white, I believe that no-one should be paid simply because they create art. I believe that, not from some free-market ideological position (which I definitely don't have) but because I believe the quality of work would diminish under a subsidy. Subsidies are generally, given out at a blanket rate, to enable otherwise uneconomic activities to exist. The way these subsidies are allocated are on the basis of either some scale of worthiness, or some scale of outputs.
Look at the high performance sports programme. It picked the worthiest candidates, but its own criteria, and focussed the resources on them. By and large, they haven't delivered. And the resources have been denied to those further down the pecking order.
If the criteria were based around the number of outputs, there is potential for quality to drop, in order to meet your quota. Not good either.
"Adapt or die" is dead accurate. It's not condemning anyone or abandoning them - it's simple advice. The world has changed and, if you don't, you will be left behind. Old business models are failing, you need new ones. Why do you have a problem with this, which I believe to be self-evident?
Especially since, at the same time as you take the technologically deterministic view that the human behaviour is predetermined by these new tools of ours, you're also suggesting reducing the length of copyright terms. Anything else you'd like content creators to give up?
For the last 40 years, copyright terms have been extended, and extended, and extended. Not because artists asked for it, but because the mouse was about to emerge from its private hole. I'd like a return to the status quo of around 1960. I'd see that as a good start.
But it's not enough. I'd say to you that the world has changed. Copyright law was initially designed to regulate publisher to publisher conflicts. Now, everyone on the Internet is able to publish and republish. Technology now allows anyone to infringe, where once you needed a solid investment in plant. The game has changed and laws must change to reflect that.
I must say, and it's very much a minor corollary, that I'm also unimpressed by this idea (historical, I know) that copyright protections are there to help artists make their next work.
Oh, you're disappointed. I know plenty of artists who'd be pleased to have anything to finance their next work.
Were and I an artist, I'd be tempted to say "why don't you fuck off already, society? I've written/painted/set to music this thing you want and crave, but you're only willing to pay for it with the understanding I will give you some more?"
See, there's that emotive stuff again. As you're self-admittedly) not an artist, I do wonder why you get so wound up over this, but never mind. I've written before about why this is. If you haven't heard it yet, you're not going to, so I won't waste our time.
It seems a peculiar way of treating a valuable sector of society, in this mercantile society of ours. We bail out investment bankers, don't we?
Wouldn't have happened if I was King.
-
That's a cop out.
No, it's a description, and some advice. You can get all bent out of shape about it, or you can take it in your stride and change your practice to minimise it.
Technically, artists who have their stuff pirated are victims of, shall we say, non-legality.
No, say "illegal" - that's what it is.
Do you say that all crime victims should just "adapt or die" (rather than seek redress via the legal system?)
Of course not, but there are two things to consider: a) the nature of the illegality and b) the level of illegality.
<legal_stuff>While copyright infringement is illegal, it is not a crime, mmkay? This is why we have separate legislation. If copyright infringement was a crime, it would be in a section of the Crimes Act, which is the legal definition of what is regarded as a crime. Crimes are prosecuted by the state. Copyright infringement (at present) is prosecuted as a civil matter. Okay? There are exceptions, such as criminal prosecution for wholesale infringement, which is what the "Sione's Wedding" DVD pirates were charged under. But on the whole, civil, not criminal.</legal>
<philosophical>If you get assaulted, or someone steals your car, it's an isolated event. The legal process is constructed to deal with that. If you were being assaulted every 5 minutes, I'd probably advise you to move or get a gun, but the legal process would not be able to cope with all the investigations or prosecutions. Something would have to change.
Let's stipulate that the level of copyright infringement is high. Let's say there are 300 infringements an hour. How on earth do you prosecute that? As an individual, do you spend all your money and time trying to stop it, or do you change your business stratagy to minimise the impact? One path will cost and frustrate you, the other may lead to something.</philosophical>
If not, then why the difference?
What I'm saying here is that not all illegalities are created equal, and the strategies to deal with each are difficult. Don't try to equate crime with copyright infringement. It's not fair to crime or the real victims of it.
-
I don't recall negotiating alterations to my name, even on a non-commercial basis. :-)
Apple-ogies, the elves borrowed my 'o' for a minute,
-
But as you say about risk - that's what you take when you want to make the fortune. And sometimes it works and sometime you come home chastened and wiser, and move on to the next thing in your life.
-
Not true for music though. It's been relatively easy for a musician, internationally speaking if not NZ, to drag a reasonable living out of their art, and, although much of that is from live work, traditionally performers signed to a big record company have also found themselves on a wage (as an advance against future income from the label). It's a part of the risk the label has often taken when investing in an artist.
And yet many musicians still have day jobs to pay the rent. I agree that music has had it better, but it's still the exceptions that make it their primary living (when you look at all who play and sing for any sort of recompense) and the real exceptions that make a fortune.
-
Kyle and Givanni:
Whatever. Agree to disagree.
-
what you're advocating is not paying for art, but taking it anyway.
I dispute that. Where have I advocated it?
What I'm saying is that "it's going to happen - deal with it".
Surely, if you decide to accept a product, then you are obligated to pay for it
That's the ethical position I live by. I know there are others that don't, and there will always be so.
You seem to be saying that by describing a situation, I am therefore advocating it as a Good Thing. No.
-
Yeah, agriculture had even more of an impact there. Allowed people to settle - nuff said.
I'm thinking that the nomads in the world might disagree with that, and those races that moved across various parts of the world from prehistory on. They took fire with them, you know, and stories.
-
I'm still having something of a problem with your "no one owes 'em a living" take on things. There's a hell of difference between "not giving someone a job" and "giving them a job but not paying them", isn't there?
Clear as mud ;-)
When I say, "no one owes them a living", I'm generally talking about artists, writers, creatives etc. and I mean there is no guaranteed living in that area of work. Let's call it a vocation because it's something that a) chooses you and b) you choose to embrace.
But statistically speaking, it's rarely a primary source of revenue for the practitioner, so it would be pretty silly to expect it to be. Most every actor, artist, writer I know has a another source of revenue that enables them to support their artistic endeavours. There are exceptions but, in the main, the arts has been a historically low paying existence, and often is classed as a hobby rather than real work (classed by non-artists, of course).
Whether or not you receive revenue for artistic endeavour depends on a number of things - surrounding cultural acceptance, actual talent, materials used - many variables go into the mix. Sometimes luck plays more of a factor than talent.
here's a hell of difference between "not giving someone a job" and "giving them a job but not paying them", isn't there?
I have no idea what you mean by that and struggle to see how you got it out of anything I said.
-
sometimes the social darwinist comes out.
I call it pragmatic realism. ;-)