[RD] Morals of enjoying works made by people who have done bad things

[Valka D'Ur]

Not all book rights transfer to a big company, or an apathetic freeloader, after the author's death. Christopher Tolkien, the youngest son of J.R.R. Tolkien, considers his father's works like gold, and very carefully and lovingly shepherds them. The same with Isaac Asimov's daughter.

Ah, that would be Robyn, his "beautiful, blue-eyed daughter" referenced in so many of his essay collections?

He knew he had a winner with one of his short stories when he let her read it and she couldn't stop crying at the end. Apparently it was a very emotional experience for her.

It's a shame Brian Herbert isn't "lovingly shepherding" Frank Herbert's legacy.

 

[Zelig]

The supreme court just struck down excessive seizure.

Where "excessive" is defined by the laws on the books.

Do you extend this rationale to their other property? What property would you say shouldn't be seized by the government on the assertion of "bad things done", if any?

That's easy! The government shouldn't seize anything where the rights wouldn't automatically expire after some time.

I still firmly believe that once you start stacking on unrelated legal aspects to criminal prosecution, you are crossing a legal line, and establishing a legal precedent, where monstrous results can easily be justified. It's a pathway to justifying collective punishment, permanent stripping of all citizenship, and other dystopian policies, once you start casually heading down that path.

See, I think taking away the right of currently incarcerated to vote is horrifically worse than prematurely ending exclusive IP rights.

And the slippery slope is fallacious, anyway.

Not all book rights transfer to a big company, or an apathetic freeloader, after the author's death. Christopher Tolkien, the youngest son of J.R.R. Tolkien, considers his father's works like gold, and very carefully and lovingly shepherds them. The same with Isaac Asimov's daughter.

And Queen Elizabeth II has done pretty well, but it's not a great argument for rule by heredity.

 

[Hygro]

Maybe try writing and performing music rather than sampling other people then.

I do. I do my own sound design, my own writing/composition, my own arrangements, my own mixing, my own mastering. While I take it all the way this is typical of artists. I hardly sample beyond the samples that come in a drum kit (think the stock sounds of a drum machine— technically samples) and even those get processed into something new.

What you're saying is really poor manners. Bottom floor BS.

All music is iterative and we shouldn't arbitrarily limit dimensions of creativity because we want to legally reinforce the primacy of existing winners. Existing winners who themselves are using numerous samples.

What music do you listen to?

 

[Patine]

Where "excessive" is defined by the laws on the books.



That's easy! The government shouldn't seize anything where the rights wouldn't automatically expire after some time.



See, I think taking away the right of currently incarcerated to vote is horrifically worse than prematurely ending exclusive IP rights.

And the slippery slope is fallacious, anyway.



And Queen Elizabeth II has done pretty well, but it's not a great argument for rule by heredity.

Why do you honestly believe that creative intellectual property is completely differently than something purchased or crafted physically. I still think you must be an utter Philistine with no creative capability at all, or interaction in any positive way with those who have such capacity, and believe robbing, and treating as a lesser class of contributor, those who create intellectual property, as opposed to hard crafted, or physically bought and sold property, just to make things more convenient and cheaper for spineless couch potatoes, is perfectly justifiable, which is, in and of itself, a gross and disgusting social and economic double standard. And, even though "the slippery slope" is banned as a tactic in collegiate debating societies, and on paper, and in theory, SHOULD be able to disregarded, human nature and stupidity make that very dubious ground to rest on - in fact, given history, and what's going on around the world, outright FOOLHARDY ground to rest on.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That's easy! The government shouldn't seize anything where the rights wouldn't automatically expire after some time.

Haha, what rights "don't expire after some time"? If someone with no family dies without a will, the land and property is just theirs forever in unqualified fashion?

I think not, suggesting a need for more granularity than implied. IP has the P in it for a reason, and whatever rulings are made on it shouldn't be arbitrary.

 

[Hygro]

just to make things more convenient and cheaper for spineless couch potatoes

This is funny, I responded to this before, and you dodged it, and now you repeat it.

My success as an artist is only helped by any loosening of IP laws that prevent people from hearing my works, and that prevent me from creating art out of existing material.

 

[Patine]

This is funny, I responded to this before, and you dodged it, and now you repeat it.

My success as an artist is only helped by any loosening of IP laws that prevent people from hearing my works, and that prevent me from creating art out of existing material.

If IP laws were loosened as much as some have proposed here, you would make NO money, except for fees by clubs and such for personal performances - that would be about it - whereas corporate-employed and -sponsored musicians will still benefit in a far greater sense from working for a big recording label, even if IP laws are loosened across the board. Loosening IP laws doesn't really change the degree of success and wealth of you compared to Jay-Z, Brittany Spears, Taylor Swift, Keith Urban, or the Rolling Stones, for instance, it just creates a new legal dynamic which will be equally unbalanced because the Corporatist Plutocratic Oligarchy is still intact, either way.

 

[Hygro]

If IP laws were loosened as much as some have proposed here, you would make NO money, except for fees by clubs and such for personal performances - that would be about it - whereas corporate-employed and -sponsored musicians will still benefit in a far greater sense from working for a big recording label, even if IP laws are loosened across the board.

I pay for spotify out of convenience and quality of service, not because I can't pirate. I am paying for their music finding algorithms, ease of use, everything. I also buy music occasionally, but I have the infrastructure to avoid it completely. Everyone I know personally first pirated and now pays for music because, ultimately, you get the distribution service you pay for. Time is money. Effort is disutility. Since those distribution services are profiting, it makes sense they should pay for the source of their commercial profits. Protect IP from ventures and artists that are financially larger than you and problem solved.

Seriously, people are donating to twitch streamers for content they are getting for free the the very platform that they continue to use after that donation. They aren't getting anything. People will find a way to pay artists for their work.

So streaming, which exists regardless of piracy potential, pays artists (fairly well). Live shows continue to be the other source. Your recorded music, which will pay you directly even with piracy, is advertising for your show. Normally you have to pay for advertising. What a steal.

My likelihood of getting bookings is a function of how many fans are listening to my stuff. Fans want good services so they pay the service that pays me to have something to serve. This is my prospective income right here. A billion plays on Spotify grosses me $3 million. The only people with songs hitting 1 billion of course are the Biebs of the industry. If my lead single (advertisement) has that many listens, how many fans do I convert? Well, with Biebs, his last tour was 2016-2017, sold 2.5 million tickets and grossed $250 million. So I'm getting as many dollars from streaming my biggest single as I am buyers for my concert, which including tickets and merch, are at $100 a person! Wowzers. Seems like a good investment to pay to get people to listen to you.

Loosening IP laws doesn't really change the degree of success and wealth of you compared to Jay-Z, Brittany Spears, Taylor Swift, Keith Urban, or the Rolling Stones, for instance, it just creates a new legal dynamic which will be equally unbalanced because the Corporatist Plutocratic Oligarchy is still intact, either way

And of course it does. They're capped out: they reached the maximum size as everyone's heard them all and listens or not. I, on the other hand, am small. Let's say a billion times smaller. That's the gap. Any growth I have narrows that gap. And any impediments to my growth slows down that narrowing. So by definition, by logic...

 

[Bugfatty300]

If IP laws were loosened as much as some have proposed here, you would make NO money, except for fees by clubs and such for personal performances - that would be about it - whereas corporate-employed and -sponsored musicians will still benefit in a far greater sense from working for a big recording label, even if IP laws are loosened across the board. Loosening IP laws doesn't really change the degree of success and wealth of you compared to Jay-Z, Brittany Spears, Taylor Swift, Keith Urban, or the Rolling Stones, for instance, it just creates a new legal dynamic which will be equally unbalanced because the Corporatist Plutocratic Oligarchy is still intact, either way.

Pop musicians themselves are the products, not their music which is almost always outsourced these days. The hired musicians who actually write the songs and albums for the these pop stars have zero rights over their creations.

This legalized predatory pyramid scheme is true for almost any IP-hoarding corporate industry from inventors and architects to minimum wage guy who draws caricatures at the amusement park.

Selfemployed artists are out of work because of corporate consolidation; I think it's perfectly possible torrent and rip media without any fear of harming an actual creator. Thus the moralistic argument against piracy holds is about as convincing as those against marijuana and gay marriage.

I don't expect IP laws to loosen but defacto decriminalization is unenforcement is the future.​

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: As a quick reminder to people unused to posting in RD threads, even mild insults are not tolerated.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Hygro]

Pop musicians themselves are the products, not their music which is almost always outsourced these days. The hired musicians who actually write the songs and albums for the these pop stars have zero rights over their creations.

This legalized predatory pyramid scheme is true for almost any IP-hoarding corporate industry from inventors and architects to minimum wage guy who draws caricatures at the amusement park.

Selfemployed artists are out of work because of corporate consolidation; I think it's perfectly possible torrent and rip media without any fear of harming an actual creator. Thus the moralistic argument against piracy holds is about as convincing as those against marijuana and gay marriage.

I don't expect IP laws to loosen but defacto decriminalization is unenforcement is the future.​

Agreed except a lot of these pop musicians are part of the creative process. Teams make it happen. It only enhances viability plus a lot of what is musically compelling is the hard-to-describe energy of a record, which "the Stars" can be counted on to provide in spades. That "energy" comes from many things but translates through even programmed drums. A "this is good/let's cut that" ability to judge on the fly will make or break a record.

 

[Zelig]

Why do you honestly believe that creative intellectual property is completely differently than something purchased or crafted physically. I still think you must be an utter Philistine with no creative capability at all, or interaction in any positive way with those who have such capacity, and believe robbing, and treating as a lesser class of contributor, those who create intellectual property, as opposed to hard crafted, or physically bought and sold property, just to make things more convenient and cheaper for spineless couch potatoes, is perfectly justifiable, which is, in and of itself, a gross and disgusting social and economic double standard. And, even though "the slippery slope" is banned as a tactic in collegiate debating societies, and on paper, and in theory, SHOULD be able to disregarded, human nature and stupidity make that very dubious ground to rest on - in fact, given history, and what's going on around the world, outright FOOLHARDY ground to rest on.

I love various forms of creative works and have great respect for creators and artists who aren't criminals.

Haha, what rights "don't expire after some time"? If someone with no family dies without a will, the land and property is just theirs forever in unqualified fashion?

Don't be obstinate, it should be pretty clear what I mean by the difference between property rights that are indefinite with some nominal effort, vs. property rights that are specifically engineered to expire.

If IP laws were loosened as much as some have proposed here, you would make NO money

You're implying Hygro is a criminal? Because that's the only loosening that's been proposed in this thread.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

See, I think taking away the right of currently incarcerated to vote is horrifically worse than prematurely ending exclusive IP rights.

Somehow I can't muster any sympathy if the likes of Paul Bernardo was not allowed to vote. I have to fight the Returning Officer in federal elections to exercise my right to vote, and I didn't rape and kill anyone. But apparently prisoners' rights are more important than the rights of the disabled.

And Queen Elizabeth II has done pretty well, but it's not a great argument for rule by heredity.

Robyn Asimov (or whatever her last name is now, if she's married) isn't "ruling by heredity." If she's the person appointed to oversee her father's literary works, it doesn't mean she controls anything but that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Don't be obstinate, it should be pretty clear what I mean by the difference between property rights that are indefinite with some nominal effort, vs. property rights that are specifically engineered to expire.

IP isn't the only such property, and you're still not establishing sound reasoning why "temporary" property should be exceptionally seized.

 

[Hygro]

IP isn't the only such property, and you're still not establishing sound reasoning why "temporary" property should be exceptionally seized.

A twitch streamer has music on in the background. They aren't allowed to upload the VOD because of a danger property is going to be seized?

Is that how you think of it?

 

[Zelig]

Somehow I can't muster any sympathy if the likes of Paul Bernardo was not allowed to vote.

I don't have sympathy for Paul Bernardo, I have a distaste for biased incentives. In this case, the incentive of a government to have people who'd vote against it be in prison.

IP isn't the only such property, and you're still not establishing sound reasoning why "temporary" property should be exceptionally seized.

What other property works like that? I mean, a chunk of Highway 407 in Ontario is operated by a private company under a 99-year lease. I think the government should absolutely have included a provision to terminate that lease given sufficient criminal conduct by Ferrovial S. A.

I don't think "exceptionally seized" is a fair characterization of an early cessation of a contract because one party didn't abide by the terms.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

A twitch streamer has music on in the background. They aren't allowed to upload the VOD because of a danger property is going to be seized?

Is that how you think of it?

In case you weren't following along with the back and forth, I've been arguing against property seizure rather than for it.

I don't think "exceptionally seized" is a fair characterization of an early cessation of a contract because one party didn't abide by the terms.

Breach of terms is another matter, unless IP like a patent explicitly lists specific actions that void it and the entity in question takes one of those actions. To my knowledge there is no express provision for criminal offenses and I'm not convinced there should be, for the same reason that assets in general don't.

 

[Zelig]

Breach of terms is another matter, unless IP like a patent explicitly lists specific actions that void it and the entity in question takes one of those actions. To my knowledge there is no express provision for criminal offenses and I'm not convinced there should be, for the same reason that assets in general don't.

I've never argued for not grandfathering in existing IP holders. But IP is really very different from assets in general. It's a public asset where the operator has a fixed term agreement to operate it for the benefit of the public.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

What you're saying is really poor manners. Bottom floor BS.

If you say so. I just think if you're sampling melodies, riffs, or even individual sounds that other people have created by actually performing them in some way, then it seems fairly reasonable to say you don't have the right to commerically profit from that unless you've done something genuinely transformative. And if it really is transformative or genuinely creative in its own right then it shouldn't need to rely heavily on any specific sampled section. If it can't then that implies you're just quoting, not transforming.

All music is iterative and we shouldn't arbitrarily limit dimensions of creativity because we want to legally reinforce the primacy of existing winners. Existing winners who themselves are using numerous samples.

Are they licensed to use those samples though?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I've never argued for not grandfathering in existing IP holders. But IP is really very different from assets in general. It's a public asset where the operator has a fixed term agreement to operate it for the benefit of the public.

That fixed term agreement is itself still an asset. I don't see why it should be special when it comes to the question "is it reasonable for someone else to seize this", nor have I seen a coherent case for why it should be.