[ExI] 'Copyright' (Was: Re: to my fellow renaissance life forms)

[Dave Sill]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 5:25 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> SR Ballard wrote:
> > I like their work, I give them money. It’s not complicated.
> >
> > I will often buy a physical or electronic copy of a book I have
> > pirated, if I liked it. I buy merch from bands, pay for concert
> > tickets, buy tracks. I donate money to streamers...
> >
> > Piracy is no different than borrowing your friend’s book/CD/movie. If
> > you enjoyed it, you’ll get a legit copy for yourself.
>
> Thank you, a lone sane voice among the brainwashed (so it seems to me,
> anyway).
>

Piracy is *legally* different from borrowing because it's illegal. It may
not make sense to you, but that's the law.

Ask Charlie Stross how he makes a living when he routinely puts his
> fiction on the web for anyone to read without any strings whatsoever.
>

If Charlie Stross chooses to make his works available, that's great! But
that doesn't mean that model will work for every creator.

My experience and opinion, is the same as SRB's. I have paid-for hard
> copies of several works of fiction (by Stross and others) that I first
> read for free. I decided that I wanted to give these guys money to
> encourage them to keep writing the stuff that I like. I have also read
> for free, stuff that I didn't like so much, and declined to give those
> authors money, not wanting to encourage them further.
>
> What could be fairer than that?
>

If reading "for free" means reading an illegal copy, then what would be
fairer would be to either read a legal copy or not read it at all.

The people who profit the most from the current system are the
> middle-men. The publishers and big media corporations. You know, the
> ones who lobby for these crazy copyright laws that benefit no-one but
> them. The sooner these parasites wither away, the better.
>

Do away with copyrights, and publishers and big media corporations will go
away, too. Say goodbye to movies that cost millions to make. You may be
fine with that but I suspect the majority would not.

Regarding the notion that amateur musicians create nothing but
> poor-quality pap, consider what the word 'amateur' actually means.


There are great amateurs and talentless pros.


> And
> think about who is more likely to produce good music: Someone who does
> it for love, or someone who does it to pay the rent?


Musicians have to pay their rent.

How many times have
> you heard second and third albums from promising bands, and thought "Not
> nearly as good as the first one"? Why do you think that is?
>

Because the debut album usually comes from several years of writing and
pressure to pay the bills, pressure from the label (e.g., via a contract),
or just a desire to cash in while they can forces them to release
subsequent albums before they've sufficient new material of the same
quality. Or maybe they just can't do it again. Sometimes the well runs dry.

This is one area where I'm quite dismayed to see extropians so deeply
> entrenched in the same mental rut as the vast majority of people. We're
> supposed to be good at thinking outside the box and looking to a better
> future, not enthusiastically toeing the corporate party line that's
> threatening to drag us down into the kind of dystopia that Cory Doctorow
> etc. keep trying to alert us all to.
>

We're talking about the current state of affairs. If you've got an idea for
an improvement, let's hear it.

I think copyright terms are too long. Shortening them from 50-100 years
past the death of the creator to, say, 20 years from the date of
publication, would still give creators enough protection to justify their
efforts.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20210820/02c5967e/attachment.htm>