At least, it's not new in the long view of what art is. Art need not be representational of real life, a fact that was explored in great detail after the invention of the camera. The view that art needs to be beautiful is simplistic. Beauty is subjective, and it's entirely possible to make beautiful art out of ugly things and ugly art out of beautiful things. While I agree with another poster who said that art should be able to stand on it's own without explanation, that's just my opinion. There's nothing wrong with making something that's not understandable without explanation. Also, art has a long tradition of people not accepting new forms and media as Real Art. Maybe this form of art is a dead end. Maybe it will lead somewhere interesting. Either way is okay. And it's perfectly acceptable to admit that it's art, and still think that it's crap.
I'm not arguing that the overall supply of art isn't far greater than the overall demand. But that's not important because not all art is worth the same amount. An ounce of gold is an ounce of gold, and once it's been refined one bar of it is worth no more than another. That's not so with art. The demand for some art is higher than the demand for other art.
As I said, the current laws are broken. They last far too long and media companies have gone about protecting their assets in a stupid way. But throwing them out completely is an overreaction. There's no reason that we can't have copyrights last for a reasonable amount of time. The fact that some art may not take much time to create isn't relevant. Sure, you are free to take into account the time it takes to make art. Most people don't.
I have no problem with businesses owning copyrights and/or paying artists to work for hire. If a business hires an artist and the artist agrees to give up the copyright, then both parties have agreed to the terms and there's no problem. Artists are free to make their own business, or just sell their work outright, keeping all the profit for themselves. The reason that most don't is because they'd rather be making art than running a business.
If we consider the supply to be infinite digital copies, then yes, the supply is effectively more than the demand. If we consider the supply to be the relatively small amount of new work that most people spend their time watching and listening to, then the supply is limited and the demand is effectively unlimited. Yes, digital things can be infinitely reproduced. Does that mean that content creators shouldn't get paid? I say no.
Are you saying that copyright laws are a handout? Though the current system is broken, at their core they are just laws that allow people to distribute a product and have a chance at making a profit. There are laws in place to protect all kinds of occupations. I don't see how artists deserve any less.
You don't like art too much. Okay. I don't have any problem with any of the ways you listed that you get your tiny art fix. That "free" stuff you mention is mostly paid for by advertising, and still protected by copyright.
But let me get this right. You are perfectly satisfied with all of the art in your life and the way in which you receive it. You're against copyright... why? Or were you just complaining about artists getting paid to do work that isn't "real" or vital to the survival of the human species?
But then, that gets right at the heart at the problem. There's way too much supply and not enough demand. Lots of people are expecting to spend 40+ hours a week "making art" and get paid a sufficient wage to live on it.
See the thing is, your art is only worth what some generous (that's right) individual is willing to pay for it. No one needs your particular works. Whatever it is, someone else is almost certainly creating very similar works from their own creativity for a much lower price, and likely for free (or at least for only the cost of materials). That same individual is holding another job to pay the bills, and creating art because it's his/her passion. That is, has always been, and will always be the case. It's only in very recent history that more than a very very small percentage of the population is able to make an actual living doing nothing but creating art or entertaining.
Guess what's going to be one of the hardest-hit industries if we really do hit another real depression?
I'll give you a hint: a few hundreds of millions of would-be artists are going to find out what real work is.
There's actually a huge demand for artwork, and we we can make it faster and get it to more customers, faster, than ever before. You're right that a lot of people want to make art for a living, and yes, some of those will be weeded out, just like any job. I am all for someone sitting in their bedroom, making art of whatever kind, and releasing it for free. But those people simply cannot keep up the pace with people who do it full time. Those people cannot keep up with industry trends as well. Those people cannot improve as quickly. And though it's possible, it's damn hard for them to make anything large like a feature film. The only film I worked on used limited animation (think late night Cartoon Network) and it still took dozens of animators thousands of hours- and that's just part of making the film, even if you take out all of the business and advertising stuff.
Take a look at your ipod. Take a look at your DVD shelf. Take a look at the art on your walls. How much of that was done by independent artists who did their work for free? Maybe you're an exception, but probably little or none.
People don't make art just because they need a quick buck.
Any artist of any form worth their salt is doing it because they geinuinely like the artform, and would do so pay or no pay.
This coming from a musician who uploads his music for free download on the internet.
Whoah, buddy, you don't get to speak for all artists. I love doing art and I'd do it anyway, but if I'm going to spend 40+ hours a week doing it, I need to get paid. Feel free to make however much art you want and give it away, but just because that works for you doesn't mean that it works for everyone, or that it's the best way for art to be made.
Your burger doesn't look as good as the one in the picture for a couple of reasons. One is that the artists making the picture are extremely good at showing the product in a flattering way, and that's not going to change. Another part of that is because some products simply can't sit under hot lights for an hour, so they don't even use the real thing. The only thing that removing digital alteration from the process will do is force advertisers to use non-digital means of making their products look good. Non-digital airbrushing is still effective, just not as cheap. The burger on the menu will still look like a team of professional artists worked to make it look at good as possible, and the burger on your plate will still look like it was assembled by a high school kid in a hurry.
I suspect that CGI in general is not as expensive as George Lucas would have us believe. There is probably good software solutions out for that industry, pop in a model and manipulate the shot. Why not, "we have the technology..."
Yeah, just hit the "Make It Awesome" button. Seriously though, television shows and movies show people curing diseases in an hour, hacking into anything from anywhere in minutes, and basically doing things that are completely fucking impossible in a time frame that's unrealistic for even a modest project. That's not real life. Though there are some things that computers make really easy, that doesn't mean that everything that's done with them is easy. Just because you install word doesn't mean that you can write anything worth reading. That part still takes a lot of work. It's the same with CGI.
Why just give them the names of a small group? I think the way to handle these kinds of things is to submit as many people as possible as potential threats. With hundreds of millions of names, the list becomes completely useless.
I think you're leaving out the very important professional market. Yes, enthusiasts will most likely want a tower PC, but for people in certain industries, the power, screen real estate, and full size keyboard of a desktop are absolutely necessary. What some people tend to forget is that even though the setup that they have works perfectly for them, it's totally inappropriate for many others.
"whether or not an image has been doctored is detectable."
The above statement is false. An altered image *may* be detectable. It could also be totally undetectable. It is also true that an expert may consider an unaltered image to be altered.
You guys come up with some very complex reasoning to decide if you like certain music. Did the band "sell out"? What is their position on copyright? What was their previous position on copyright? Are any band members assholes? Are they using a new business model, and if so, are they one of the first two to do it? It sounds like high school drama.
I just don't understand slashdot mentality sometimes. Here's a novel idea: Listen to the music. Do you like it? Buy it. Do you not like it? Don't buy it. Now take the free time you just created and do something useful with it.
What specifically can you do in Photoshop that I can't do in Gimp? Its probably just a matter of what you're used to. I went to check it out to see if the brush engine has improved since I last used it. After checking out the documentation, forum, and a google image search it seems that its just as weak as ever. Granted, that's not an issue for many people. But for most illustrators, a powerful brush engine is vital for quality and speed. There's no way I can use GIMP for personal or professional projects until that improves.
If you're not against copyright then we're pretty much on the same page. As for the 7/11 worker, I wasn't trying to say that they don't work hard. I'm saying that if you compare the number of people doing a good job at that, to the number of successful musicians, you'll find there are far more folks working behind the counter. It's not as easy to be a successful musician (or entertainer, if you prefer), which is proven by the fact that there are relatively few of them. It's certainly not only luck.
If Apple had paid an arist... arg, I can't remember the terminology at the moment, but there's a way to get paid that means you give up all rights to your work because you're basically only realizing someone else's vision. That's how I was paid, which means I get nothing from future sales on the work I've done because it's not mine.
You already got value from working at 7/11 in the form of a paycheck. It wasn't very much because just about anyone can work at 7/11 and do a good enough job. Without copyright, artists and the companies that pay them don't have any way to make money. With copyright, they can sell the goods that they produced for however much the market will bear.
The fact that Canada makes you pay extra to buy a blank disk is a separate issue. The fact that the RIAA is a crappy organization doesn't change my argument, either.
"It actually has to do with determining the value of WORK, and not art per se. The problem is that artists, programmers etc (and often just the companies that these people work for) derive value from WORK that is not being done (or has been done a long time ago)."
Just what is the problem with people getting value from work that was done long ago? Are old paintings suddenly worthless because of their age? Value is entirely subjective. There is no formula that people check before they purchase goods or services. The price is either worth it to them, or it is not. You are more than welcome to not purchase something because of your beliefs about the amount of work that went into its production, however, that does not mean that it's worth less to other people.
so what really *is* the value of Britney Spears' work? Whatever people are willing to pay for it. Whether it took Ms. Spears 15 years to write a song, or if it was a 10 second improvisation, if people are willing to spend millions on it, then it's worth millions. The fact that middle men make money on the deal isn't relevant, either.
And to the other posters who think that only original artists should be able to have the copyright, what's the point of that? A copyright is property. Why shouldn't the creator have the right to sell his property? That doesn't benefit anyone and only hurts the artist.
It's more a matter of being fair (and practical). Copyright doesn't loose value like material property. With copyright people can still make money off of work they have long since done. It's bizarre. Laws are easy to create, and the non-power brokers like me have no defacto say. Five years is plenty fair IMHO for getting paid for (in some cases a few hours worth of work), over and over again for the rest of one's life. You say "a few hours worth of work" as though that has anything to do with determining the value of art.
Slashdot Mirror
LGBT is 1% of Nintendo Buyers.
Citation?
Right, racial profiling. Which race was it that has never been in any violent confrontation with the US?
At least, it's not new in the long view of what art is. Art need not be representational of real life, a fact that was explored in great detail after the invention of the camera. The view that art needs to be beautiful is simplistic. Beauty is subjective, and it's entirely possible to make beautiful art out of ugly things and ugly art out of beautiful things. While I agree with another poster who said that art should be able to stand on it's own without explanation, that's just my opinion. There's nothing wrong with making something that's not understandable without explanation. Also, art has a long tradition of people not accepting new forms and media as Real Art. Maybe this form of art is a dead end. Maybe it will lead somewhere interesting. Either way is okay. And it's perfectly acceptable to admit that it's art, and still think that it's crap.
Surely you have a citation for the claim that you made in the first sentence.
Overreact much?
I'm not arguing that the overall supply of art isn't far greater than the overall demand. But that's not important because not all art is worth the same amount. An ounce of gold is an ounce of gold, and once it's been refined one bar of it is worth no more than another. That's not so with art. The demand for some art is higher than the demand for other art.
As I said, the current laws are broken. They last far too long and media companies have gone about protecting their assets in a stupid way. But throwing them out completely is an overreaction. There's no reason that we can't have copyrights last for a reasonable amount of time. The fact that some art may not take much time to create isn't relevant. Sure, you are free to take into account the time it takes to make art. Most people don't.
I have no problem with businesses owning copyrights and/or paying artists to work for hire. If a business hires an artist and the artist agrees to give up the copyright, then both parties have agreed to the terms and there's no problem. Artists are free to make their own business, or just sell their work outright, keeping all the profit for themselves. The reason that most don't is because they'd rather be making art than running a business.
If we consider the supply to be infinite digital copies, then yes, the supply is effectively more than the demand. If we consider the supply to be the relatively small amount of new work that most people spend their time watching and listening to, then the supply is limited and the demand is effectively unlimited. Yes, digital things can be infinitely reproduced. Does that mean that content creators shouldn't get paid? I say no. Are you saying that copyright laws are a handout? Though the current system is broken, at their core they are just laws that allow people to distribute a product and have a chance at making a profit. There are laws in place to protect all kinds of occupations. I don't see how artists deserve any less. You don't like art too much. Okay. I don't have any problem with any of the ways you listed that you get your tiny art fix. That "free" stuff you mention is mostly paid for by advertising, and still protected by copyright. But let me get this right. You are perfectly satisfied with all of the art in your life and the way in which you receive it. You're against copyright... why? Or were you just complaining about artists getting paid to do work that isn't "real" or vital to the survival of the human species?
But then, that gets right at the heart at the problem. There's way too much supply and not enough demand. Lots of people are expecting to spend 40+ hours a week "making art" and get paid a sufficient wage to live on it.
See the thing is, your art is only worth what some generous (that's right) individual is willing to pay for it. No one needs your particular works. Whatever it is, someone else is almost certainly creating very similar works from their own creativity for a much lower price, and likely for free (or at least for only the cost of materials). That same individual is holding another job to pay the bills, and creating art because it's his/her passion. That is, has always been, and will always be the case. It's only in very recent history that more than a very very small percentage of the population is able to make an actual living doing nothing but creating art or entertaining.
Guess what's going to be one of the hardest-hit industries if we really do hit another real depression?
I'll give you a hint: a few hundreds of millions of would-be artists are going to find out what real work is.
There's actually a huge demand for artwork, and we we can make it faster and get it to more customers, faster, than ever before. You're right that a lot of people want to make art for a living, and yes, some of those will be weeded out, just like any job. I am all for someone sitting in their bedroom, making art of whatever kind, and releasing it for free. But those people simply cannot keep up the pace with people who do it full time. Those people cannot keep up with industry trends as well. Those people cannot improve as quickly. And though it's possible, it's damn hard for them to make anything large like a feature film. The only film I worked on used limited animation (think late night Cartoon Network) and it still took dozens of animators thousands of hours- and that's just part of making the film, even if you take out all of the business and advertising stuff. Take a look at your ipod. Take a look at your DVD shelf. Take a look at the art on your walls. How much of that was done by independent artists who did their work for free? Maybe you're an exception, but probably little or none.
People don't make art just because they need a quick buck.
Any artist of any form worth their salt is doing it because they geinuinely like the artform, and would do so pay or no pay.
This coming from a musician who uploads his music for free download on the internet.
Whoah, buddy, you don't get to speak for all artists. I love doing art and I'd do it anyway, but if I'm going to spend 40+ hours a week doing it, I need to get paid. Feel free to make however much art you want and give it away, but just because that works for you doesn't mean that it works for everyone, or that it's the best way for art to be made.
Just because you don't see the point of a question doesn't mean that it's a stupid question.
Your burger doesn't look as good as the one in the picture for a couple of reasons. One is that the artists making the picture are extremely good at showing the product in a flattering way, and that's not going to change. Another part of that is because some products simply can't sit under hot lights for an hour, so they don't even use the real thing. The only thing that removing digital alteration from the process will do is force advertisers to use non-digital means of making their products look good. Non-digital airbrushing is still effective, just not as cheap. The burger on the menu will still look like a team of professional artists worked to make it look at good as possible, and the burger on your plate will still look like it was assembled by a high school kid in a hurry.
I suspect that CGI in general is not as expensive as George Lucas would have us believe. There is probably good software solutions out for that industry, pop in a model and manipulate the shot. Why not, "we have the technology..."
Yeah, just hit the "Make It Awesome" button. Seriously though, television shows and movies show people curing diseases in an hour, hacking into anything from anywhere in minutes, and basically doing things that are completely fucking impossible in a time frame that's unrealistic for even a modest project. That's not real life. Though there are some things that computers make really easy, that doesn't mean that everything that's done with them is easy. Just because you install word doesn't mean that you can write anything worth reading. That part still takes a lot of work. It's the same with CGI.
It's almost as though different users have different needs.
Why just give them the names of a small group? I think the way to handle these kinds of things is to submit as many people as possible as potential threats. With hundreds of millions of names, the list becomes completely useless.
Terrorists have... robbed us of many of our guaranteed rights and freedoms
No, they didn't. We gave them up.
I think you're leaving out the very important professional market. Yes, enthusiasts will most likely want a tower PC, but for people in certain industries, the power, screen real estate, and full size keyboard of a desktop are absolutely necessary. What some people tend to forget is that even though the setup that they have works perfectly for them, it's totally inappropriate for many others.
What modern techniques are you talking about that make it so hard to alter pictures without getting caught?
"whether or not an image has been doctored is detectable." The above statement is false. An altered image *may* be detectable. It could also be totally undetectable. It is also true that an expert may consider an unaltered image to be altered.
You guys come up with some very complex reasoning to decide if you like certain music. Did the band "sell out"? What is their position on copyright? What was their previous position on copyright? Are any band members assholes? Are they using a new business model, and if so, are they one of the first two to do it? It sounds like high school drama. I just don't understand slashdot mentality sometimes. Here's a novel idea: Listen to the music. Do you like it? Buy it. Do you not like it? Don't buy it. Now take the free time you just created and do something useful with it.
If Apple had paid an arist... arg, I can't remember the terminology at the moment, but there's a way to get paid that means you give up all rights to your work because you're basically only realizing someone else's vision. That's how I was paid, which means I get nothing from future sales on the work I've done because it's not mine.
You already got value from working at 7/11 in the form of a paycheck. It wasn't very much because just about anyone can work at 7/11 and do a good enough job. Without copyright, artists and the companies that pay them don't have any way to make money. With copyright, they can sell the goods that they produced for however much the market will bear. The fact that Canada makes you pay extra to buy a blank disk is a separate issue. The fact that the RIAA is a crappy organization doesn't change my argument, either.
"It actually has to do with determining the value of WORK, and not art per se. The problem is that artists, programmers etc (and often just the companies that these people work for) derive value from WORK that is not being done (or has been done a long time ago)." Just what is the problem with people getting value from work that was done long ago? Are old paintings suddenly worthless because of their age? Value is entirely subjective. There is no formula that people check before they purchase goods or services. The price is either worth it to them, or it is not. You are more than welcome to not purchase something because of your beliefs about the amount of work that went into its production, however, that does not mean that it's worth less to other people.