. Neither country -- Iraq or Afghanistan -- had much, if anything, to do with our being attacked.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I am pretty sure Afghanistan was very connected to 9/11, Osama, and Al Queda via the Taliban, which was running Afghanistan at the time. Were the Taliban not harboring many Al Queda operations and people connected to the attack?
Nation rebuilding is a different issue, but even we Canadians went in to help you Americans in Afghanistan in order to kill those that killed. The Iraq sales job was not nearly as delicious and we did not join you guys there.
The premise is hardly faulted, nor circular: Art is a form of expression, all humans have some intrinsic desire to express and innovate upon those expressions (rare exceptions, of course). This will never end, despite the current structure of law. Creating formal art, on the other hand, is a different story. The expression must conform to some standards of the medium, and when current law standards offer protection for a formal art piece there is more incentive to flood the market on that medium.
It essentially comes down to "If it isn't one of my %x motives, then it isn't a real motivation." It's a form of a no true scottsman. It rejects nearly the entire spectrum of reasons in favor of just 3, and does so without justification or evidence. While you may hold such an opinion, this does not in fact make said opinion true.
The glory of the English language is its ability to be specific and vague at the same time. I did not claim those were the only three groups of artists, just that those three groups are clearly identifiable, with the exact wording "Three large groups of artists exist". It is difficult to argue there isn't a group of people more pre-disposed (via nature or nurture) to creative output than others; it is difficult to argue that many humans don't creatively express themselves on occasion for personal consumption or for the enjoyment of those around them; and it is even more difficult to argue that there isn't a group of humans that create formal art for monetary purposes. This does not exclude whatever other motivations you might believe you have, but given your descriptions on this thread you seem to fall within these parameters (your fire burning analogies especially with the second one). This does not suggest these are the only form of artists, or true artists. There are plenty of sources about the types of personalities and make-ups that are more prone to involvement in specific expressive domains, here is one random one from a UCAL Davis Dean.
Being the one who is making the assets, and donating them, I should think that nobody other than myself has any claim to state what *MY* motives and reasons for those motives *are.*
I believe that since you created the asset, you should have a right to decide where and how that piece enters the market. The 'right of first sale' is an important component to a stable pragmatic approach away from copyright and the limits of the Creative Commons group. For more on the right of first sale in the absence of copyright, consult Boldrine and Levine. However, if copies of that asset are easily made and you have chosen to give/sell that property to someone else, I do not believe you should maintain a downstream distribution monopoly. It is likely that society can more efficiently distribute your work than you can, and society will be better off as a result.
As for asserting that I am an interchangable part; take a look at the sisteen chapel's fresco. Then ask yourself, could this lady?
Artists are not interchangeable.
While its good and fun to continue to make fun of this woman and it has likely spawned many useful memes, her painting is her form of expression. I'll agree that her restoration doesn't fit with the standards of the restoration industry, but her re-envisioned piece really isn't that far off many expressionist genre works and there is certainly no formal definition for what is "good art". The best consensus is "being unique" and to be honest, this woman's restoration is really quite unique -
The tradgedy of the commons happens when the commons is not protected, and happens without fail.
The tragedy of the commons argument does not necessarily apply to intellectual property laws, especially those covered by most areas of copyright. At the bare minimum its applicability is highly debatable, especially in the context of recorded game art / movies / music. If the nature of intellectual property and intellectual property laws were more similar to that of all other forms of property there would be a stronger link here. But they aren't.
And why is this highly debatable? Because for all practical purposes these recorded products can be copied with ease, to the point where making copies (or over consumption) is largely an irrelevant cost in a technically inclined society. There is no tragedy, as the commons can be constantly exploited over and over without the risk of depletion. The endowment stock can only grow unless there are disasters causing massive data loss. In addition, it is often the consumers bearing the burden of copying and storing with almost no relation to the actions of the producers. That is, a piece of recorded music that is copied and stored on a consumer's computer does not affect the producer's decision to create in the first place. At least, it is difficult to empirically prove with the state of modern literature and can easily be disproven.
Will this reduce incentives for producers to contribute to the commons, or will there be a one-sided depletion of supply due to dissatisfied producers? If we were talking about something other than art, there are arguments to be made, but art will always be produced regardless of the current state of property rights protection. Furthermore, less art production is not necessarily a bad concept for society to grapple with, as the ability to exploit that product for copies will still exist without the risk of depletion. That is, the same optimal social welfare conditions could hypothetically be met with less producers in any one particular recorded art product market which is currently copyright protected.
The point here is that I don't want money for the work. I just want to ensure that it doesn't get used in certain ways. Preventing me from having that ability will remove any incentive for me to release it in the first place. I don't make art for money. I make art for enjoyment. I get negative enjoyment from seeing something I drew or modeled sold to me, or used in advertisements I disaprove of.
The incentive effect is a common assumption used to defend copyright extensions and employments which are simply false. Artists will always make art. Artists made art prior to copyright, artists make art under copyright which are not subject to copyright terms. Significantly changing the rules of copyright or the creative commons will not destroy the incentive to create art, it will simply transfer welfare from producers to consumers, and hopefully in a way that reduces deadweight loss effects. This is especially true in most developed countries where governments and non-profits already provide monetary incentive to create culture in addition to the further expected gains from copyright. Most IP protected sectors (especially patent fields) are provided with some sort of pre-market monetary incentives.
Insisting that I can't be afforded such minimal protection will be met with my refusal to release.
Three large groups of artists exist; those that must create art due to the chemical composition of the mind; those that create art for personal pleasure or the hedonistic consumption of others; and those that create art for economic (or monetary) reasons. If your incentive was monetary, the yes, the property commons is something you wouldn't contribute to (no matter the NC or ND clauses). But since you are clearly stating that it is not then it is unlikely that you will lose your incentive to create art, and the nature of whatever current licensing schemes are in place will not affect your labour input decisions. You'll either make art because you are addicted, or because you have an impulse to create and have others witness (and potentially buy) your creations.
Good luck using that asset when the only copy is on paper, on my desk.
If you no longer have the incentive to create, move aside. Someone else will make an artistic idea similar to yours and digitize it, rest assured. Artists are like streetcars: if you miss one, there is another one coming. As long as, you know, humans don't die off or anything.
The paintings and drawings that I do are very much tangible and physical, and I very much *do* exercise rights over them even after they have been sold to individuals or the occasional gallery.
Right, but what happens after that tangible, physical property is sold or lent? Does it not become the tangible, physical property of someone else? Much like a chair, which could also be considered art? At that point, does that other person not have the ability to exercise their desires over that property? Should the art gallery not have that right? Question mark?
"Intellectual Property". It's a legal term. Did you get stuck on the first word?
No more stuck than this comment. It appears that he was trying to hint at a very valid argument: If Intellectual Property laws had developed and were treated more like all other forms of property rights, society (and most certainly consumers) would be better off.
It is not a stretch to insinuate that intellectual property laws are a gross overextension of what a sane person might expect from property protection, nor should copyright infringement ever be considered a crime. Maybe a civil violation in certain contexts, but certainly not a crime.
A separate performance of your song is not a derivative. As soon as you release your recorded music product publicly, a compulsory license applies to it: That is, anyone can perform that piece publicly and commercially without asking your permission. Of course, a fixed fee is meant to be paid after said public commercial performance, but only if you or some law enforcement agent happens to catch the act.
If your original recorded performance is performed by someone else and/or re-recorded/re-envisioned/remixed and publicly released with commercial intent then yes, this is a derivative, and the rights generally need to be cleared beforehand.
Slashdot Mirror
. Neither country -- Iraq or Afghanistan -- had much, if anything, to do with our being attacked.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I am pretty sure Afghanistan was very connected to 9/11, Osama, and Al Queda via the Taliban, which was running Afghanistan at the time. Were the Taliban not harboring many Al Queda operations and people connected to the attack?
Nation rebuilding is a different issue, but even we Canadians went in to help you Americans in Afghanistan in order to kill those that killed. The Iraq sales job was not nearly as delicious and we did not join you guys there.
Wow. I read a lot of comments until I read this one. I can't believe no one even half joked at this.
CC/NC/ND or any other copyright standard will not change your output....
Your basic premise is faulted, and circular.
The premise is hardly faulted, nor circular: Art is a form of expression, all humans have some intrinsic desire to express and innovate upon those expressions (rare exceptions, of course). This will never end, despite the current structure of law. Creating formal art, on the other hand, is a different story. The expression must conform to some standards of the medium, and when current law standards offer protection for a formal art piece there is more incentive to flood the market on that medium.
It essentially comes down to "If it isn't one of my %x motives, then it isn't a real motivation." It's a form of a no true scottsman. It rejects nearly the entire spectrum of reasons in favor of just 3, and does so without justification or evidence. While you may hold such an opinion, this does not in fact make said opinion true.
The glory of the English language is its ability to be specific and vague at the same time. I did not claim those were the only three groups of artists, just that those three groups are clearly identifiable, with the exact wording "Three large groups of artists exist". It is difficult to argue there isn't a group of people more pre-disposed (via nature or nurture) to creative output than others; it is difficult to argue that many humans don't creatively express themselves on occasion for personal consumption or for the enjoyment of those around them; and it is even more difficult to argue that there isn't a group of humans that create formal art for monetary purposes. This does not exclude whatever other motivations you might believe you have, but given your descriptions on this thread you seem to fall within these parameters (your fire burning analogies especially with the second one). This does not suggest these are the only form of artists, or true artists. There are plenty of sources about the types of personalities and make-ups that are more prone to involvement in specific expressive domains, here is one random one from a UCAL Davis Dean.
Being the one who is making the assets, and donating them, I should think that nobody other than myself has any claim to state what *MY* motives and reasons for those motives *are.*
I believe that since you created the asset, you should have a right to decide where and how that piece enters the market. The 'right of first sale' is an important component to a stable pragmatic approach away from copyright and the limits of the Creative Commons group. For more on the right of first sale in the absence of copyright, consult Boldrine and Levine. However, if copies of that asset are easily made and you have chosen to give/sell that property to someone else, I do not believe you should maintain a downstream distribution monopoly. It is likely that society can more efficiently distribute your work than you can, and society will be better off as a result.
As for asserting that I am an interchangable part; take a look at the sisteen chapel's fresco. Then ask yourself, could this lady?
Artists are not interchangeable.
While its good and fun to continue to make fun of this woman and it has likely spawned many useful memes, her painting is her form of expression. I'll agree that her restoration doesn't fit with the standards of the restoration industry, but her re-envisioned piece really isn't that far off many expressionist genre works and there is certainly no formal definition for what is "good art". The best consensus is "being unique" and to be honest, this woman's restoration is really quite unique -
The tradgedy of the commons happens when the commons is not protected, and happens without fail.
The tragedy of the commons argument does not necessarily apply to intellectual property laws, especially those covered by most areas of copyright. At the bare minimum its applicability is highly debatable, especially in the context of recorded game art / movies / music. If the nature of intellectual property and intellectual property laws were more similar to that of all other forms of property there would be a stronger link here. But they aren't.
And why is this highly debatable? Because for all practical purposes these recorded products can be copied with ease, to the point where making copies (or over consumption) is largely an irrelevant cost in a technically inclined society. There is no tragedy, as the commons can be constantly exploited over and over without the risk of depletion. The endowment stock can only grow unless there are disasters causing massive data loss. In addition, it is often the consumers bearing the burden of copying and storing with almost no relation to the actions of the producers. That is, a piece of recorded music that is copied and stored on a consumer's computer does not affect the producer's decision to create in the first place. At least, it is difficult to empirically prove with the state of modern literature and can easily be disproven.
Will this reduce incentives for producers to contribute to the commons, or will there be a one-sided depletion of supply due to dissatisfied producers? If we were talking about something other than art, there are arguments to be made, but art will always be produced regardless of the current state of property rights protection. Furthermore, less art production is not necessarily a bad concept for society to grapple with, as the ability to exploit that product for copies will still exist without the risk of depletion. That is, the same optimal social welfare conditions could hypothetically be met with less producers in any one particular recorded art product market which is currently copyright protected.
The point here is that I don't want money for the work. I just want to ensure that it doesn't get used in certain ways. Preventing me from having that ability will remove any incentive for me to release it in the first place. I don't make art for money. I make art for enjoyment. I get negative enjoyment from seeing something I drew or modeled sold to me, or used in advertisements I disaprove of.
The incentive effect is a common assumption used to defend copyright extensions and employments which are simply false. Artists will always make art. Artists made art prior to copyright, artists make art under copyright which are not subject to copyright terms. Significantly changing the rules of copyright or the creative commons will not destroy the incentive to create art, it will simply transfer welfare from producers to consumers, and hopefully in a way that reduces deadweight loss effects. This is especially true in most developed countries where governments and non-profits already provide monetary incentive to create culture in addition to the further expected gains from copyright. Most IP protected sectors (especially patent fields) are provided with some sort of pre-market monetary incentives.
Insisting that I can't be afforded such minimal protection will be met with my refusal to release.
Three large groups of artists exist; those that must create art due to the chemical composition of the mind; those that create art for personal pleasure or the hedonistic consumption of others; and those that create art for economic (or monetary) reasons. If your incentive was monetary, the yes, the property commons is something you wouldn't contribute to (no matter the NC or ND clauses). But since you are clearly stating that it is not then it is unlikely that you will lose your incentive to create art, and the nature of whatever current licensing schemes are in place will not affect your labour input decisions. You'll either make art because you are addicted, or because you have an impulse to create and have others witness (and potentially buy) your creations.
Good luck using that asset when the only copy is on paper, on my desk.
If you no longer have the incentive to create, move aside. Someone else will make an artistic idea similar to yours and digitize it, rest assured. Artists are like streetcars: if you miss one, there is another one coming. As long as, you know, humans don't die off or anything.
The paintings and drawings that I do are very much tangible and physical, and I very much *do* exercise rights over them even after they have been sold to individuals or the occasional gallery.
Right, but what happens after that tangible, physical property is sold or lent? Does it not become the tangible, physical property of someone else? Much like a chair, which could also be considered art? At that point, does that other person not have the ability to exercise their desires over that property? Should the art gallery not have that right? Question mark?
"Intellectual Property". It's a legal term. Did you get stuck on the first word?
No more stuck than this comment. It appears that he was trying to hint at a very valid argument: If Intellectual Property laws had developed and were treated more like all other forms of property rights, society (and most certainly consumers) would be better off.
It is not a stretch to insinuate that intellectual property laws are a gross overextension of what a sane person might expect from property protection, nor should copyright infringement ever be considered a crime. Maybe a civil violation in certain contexts, but certainly not a crime.
A separate performance of your song is not a derivative. As soon as you release your recorded music product publicly, a compulsory license applies to it: That is, anyone can perform that piece publicly and commercially without asking your permission. Of course, a fixed fee is meant to be paid after said public commercial performance, but only if you or some law enforcement agent happens to catch the act. If your original recorded performance is performed by someone else and/or re-recorded/re-envisioned/remixed and publicly released with commercial intent then yes, this is a derivative, and the rights generally need to be cleared beforehand.