Should Intellectual Property exist?

[Joij21]

I mean we have to pay authors because they need money to live.

It's more than simply trying to live, it's about being motivated to go above and beyond. To be compensated above mere subsistence in order to feel validated that the hard work they do truly is important.

 

[Crezth]

To go above and beyond in terms of what though? Producing superior art, or a superior capitalist spectacle?

 

[PPQ_Purple]

But why persist in this charade that compensation for an author or for that matter a production company should actually be proportional to how many "copies" a book sells? Whom does it really benefit to produce so many books for sale? Since we know authors are barely scraping by as it is, it seems to me we could overall improve their lot by eliminating the book market completely and offering everyone a fixed, fair income. Then, authors can produce according to their own artistic prerogatives, and nobody will be motivated by the ghoulish need to sell as many copies as possible.

I mean we have to pay authors because they need money to live. But this is not about art, it's about profits. It's not about innovation or improvement of the craft per se, but about the innovation of new capitalist production methods and cost-saving measures for distributing media products.

Charles Dickens surely could not have written so many books unless he were paid to do so. But the one book he produced on his own time - A Tale of Two Cities - so far and away surpasses anything else he wrote, one wonders why he had to spend his time writing Great Expectations.

The problem with that is the fact that resources are limited. So how do you determine who is deserving of funding for his art and who isn't?

For all its many flaws the capitalist approach does at least handle that for you by ensuring that the people whose art is considered good by the collective will of the people get bought. It also gives us, the consumers, a direct way to influence what gets created and thus allows us to (in theory) get more of what we actually want and less of what some fool at corporate HQ or some bureaucrat in the government thinks we want.

And I say in theory because as it is right now the market for art is neither free nor fair. And it stands to be reformed a lot. But if this were done it would be superior to just writing anyone who wants to be an artist a blank check.

 

[Joij21]

I mean, they already do just by owning stuff. That's not putting in anything, it's just holding something. Lazy people benefit all the time for doing nothing. The world - you know what it is, Joji? - it's unfair.

They wrote the book themselves over many days and many hours, time that could have been spent working a regular nine to five.

 

[Crezth]

They wrote the book themselves over many days and many hours, time that could have been spent working a regular nine to five.

Most writers I know? They do both the nine to five and the writing the book themselves over many days and hours. It's like there's a race of rats or somethin' that they're desperately trying to escape from. Hmm...

 

[Joij21]

To go above and beyond in terms of what though? Producing superior art, or a superior capitalist spectacle?

Look just because you don't value literature like a troglodyte, or feel it's unimportant because it's "opium for the masses" that prevents them from gaining class consciousness so they can start a civil war doesn't mean other people don't.

 

[Joij21]

Most writers I know? They do both the nine to five and the writing the book themselves over many days and hours. It's like there's a race of rats or somethin' that they're desperately trying to escape from. Hmm...

Yes, not everyone is successful in making successful books. So they must work a part time job on the side.

But nevertheless if it is popular and successful they don't want a system where the people who are making nothing are also getting the same as them. It feels childish and patronizing.

 

[Crezth]

Look just because you don't value literature like a troglodyte, or feel it's unimportant because it's "opium for the masses" that prevents them from gaining class consciousness so they can start a civil war doesn't mean other people don't.

I value literature but I'm not the one sitting here going "only literature which can be sold in tabloids or turned into major media products deserve to get production resources allocated to their distribution, and in fact should have arbitrarily huge amounts of those resources allocated per the relevant interests of the capitalist media groups involved."

But nevertheless if it is popular and successful they don't want a system where the people who are making nothing are also getting the same as them. It feels childish and patronizing.

I mean, how the hell do you know? Have you ever written something and shared it with someone? Felt your heart swell with pride as you shared your inexpressible vision and curiosity with others? Felt the warmth of resonance from sympathetic readers?

It's not always about the money, Spiderman.

 

[Joij21]

I value literature but I'm not the one sitting here going "only literature which can be sold in tabloids or turned into major media products deserve to get production resources allocated to their distribution, and in fact should have arbitrarily huge amounts of those resources allocated per the relevant interests of the capitalist media groups involved."

Well that's were entrepreneurship in trying to creatively figure out solutions to create more accessible distribution networks comes in. Hence Amazon Books.

 

[Joij21]

I mean, how the hell do you know? Have you ever written something and shared it with someone? Felt your heart swell with pride as you shared your inexpressible vision and curiosity with others? Felt the warmth of resonance from sympathetic readers?

It's not always about the money, Spiderman.

If you looked at my previous posts you will also see that I mentioned recognition as a form of compensation that some prefer, however you still can't deny that others prefer money, and others still prefer a combination of both.

For recognition based compensation that's why it's a good idea to have creative commons licenses. Whatever has a creative commons licence is free to distribute and share but cannot be claimed legally by anyone as their own original idea nor is commodifiable in it's distribution (that means some shmuck can't then distribute it for quarters or something to fuel his drug addiction).

 

[Gorbles]

Look my colony would be totally voluntary, you join of your own free accord. I'm not violently imposing my ideology on anyone.

I never insisted you had to. I'm saying; change engenders violence. There's no way to disrupt the status quo without it.

How? I'd be so far away from anyone who disagrees they could never find me.

I already said I'm not entertaining your fictional scenario where you're all able to live 20,000 leagues under the sea.

There are so many questions about the premise it's honestly laughable compared to how rigorously people question even the mildest socialist principles.

I'm responding to the assertion that nobody wants us to eat bugs or live in a pod.

My assertion was a direct response to another poster claiming that this is what socialism wanted for us.

My assertion was not "nobody on the planet has ever suggested eating bugs", because that's pretty ridiculous.

 

[Igaryd]

Your post is a bit unclear. Are you saying you've cooked recipes that are older than many of the posters here, or that you have a cook who is older than many of the posters here? In the latter case, given that the average age of the OT regulars is constantly increasing (some of us are over 60, even over 70), isn't it time she retired?

In the former case... yes? During my years in the Society for Creative Anachronism (1986-1998), our Shire put on 2-3 formal feasts/year, plus a number of less forum potlucks. Some of the recipes we used went back centuries. The turkey in chocolate sauce was a hit, btw. The Aztecs used to serve that.



Yet recipe books have a copyright. I can't just run out and publish my own version of the Company's Coming recipe books; Jean Pare's estate would probably go after me.



And now it's Amazon products that get delivered in plain brown boxes/envelopes (plain white envelopes in some cases).



Hm. Has nobody in this conversation ever played SMAC or the "start on Alpha Centauri" version of Civ II: Test of Time? I've never made it through an entire game of SMAC, but the novels based on the game are incredibly violent.

The "start on Alpha Centauri" version of ToT, on the other hand, is relatively peaceful. You're the only faction there for thousands of years, with nothing to do but explore, find goody huts, fight the occasional barbarian, and build your cities (and Wonders). You can't communicate with Earth yet, and have to wait until the late stage of the game. Then things get unpeaceful very fast.



Art forgery was a thing in ancient times as well as now. Who actually owned the rights to the artistic works produced in Greece and Rome, for instance? For that matter, who "owns the rights" to the statue of David? It's not like the original artist is around anymore to assert any rights.

I appear to have left out the word 'book' after cook. Played all three versions of test of time the fantasy setting being a personal all time favorite

 

[Igaryd]

I don't think we are on the verge of war with Russia. What makes you think we are?

1 Putin is nuts.
2. How much longer can he afford to let nato be a safe haven and training ground for Ukrainian war fighters?

 

[Joij21]

I'm saying; change engenders violence.

Well I propose not necessarily, depends on the kind of change.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

30 year old boomer

The last boomers were born in 1964.

 

[Joij21]

The last boomers were born in 1964.

A 30 year old boomer is a meme about a specific kind of person who grows up to be a carbon copy of their boomer parents and views the world in a very similar way, but is nevertheless too inward thinking to notice the irony.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I never insisted you had to. I'm saying; change engenders violence. There's no way to disrupt the status quo without it.

Change occurs all the time, sometimes with and sometimes without violence.

And there is violence with the status quo.

 

[Angst]

Art forgery was a thing in ancient times as well as now. Who actually owned the rights to the artistic works produced in Greece and Rome, for instance? For that matter, who "owns the rights" to the statue of David? It's not like the original artist is around anymore to assert any rights.

indeed, but what forgery entailed was different than it is now from what i understand. we have always appreciated art from specific people, and lying to people about art made by someone else of course undermines this. however, forgery in this sense is not the same as forgery today; at least to my knowledge, and i may be wrong, people didn't own rights to specific forms or ideas until the modern age where patents began showing up. there were other mechanics stopping people from copying than actual law reserving you the right to an idea. it's part of why alchemists worked as they did - their tomes written in esoteric code - and why shakespearean theater was originally taught to the performers through only their parts of the manuscript, the rest remaining hidden. you could forge fakes of course and this undermined things, but it was a different mechanic than today where people really legally own ideas.

for the latter, as per the current way of things, it's public domain of course. who owned the rights to the artistic works back in the day? as i understand from the literature, noone really did. it still had a sense of belonging to people, belonging to names, there was brand recognition in a sense since artistry was indeed appreciated. but there's a difference between the association/affliation of ideas and the property of ideas! the difference between "you lied to me about this being a work by this person" and "you lied to me about you being able to produce something in this likeness"; the latter was generally very allowed.

 

[Igaryd]

A 30 year old boomer is a meme about a specific kind of person who grows up to be a carbon copy of their boomer parents and views the world in a very similar way, but is nevertheless too inward thinking to notice the irony.

How is that irony?

 

[Igaryd]

indeed, but what forgery entailed was different than it is now from what i understand. we have always appreciated art from specific people, and lying to people about art made by someone else of course undermines this. however, forgery in this sense is not the same as forgery today; at least to my knowledge, and i may be wrong, people didn't own rights to specific forms or ideas until the modern age where patents began showing up. there were other mechanics stopping people from copying than actual law reserving you the right to an idea. it's part of why alchemists worked as they did - their tomes written in esoteric code - and why shakespearean theater was originally taught to the performers through only their parts of the manuscript, the rest remaining hidden. you could forge fakes of course and this undermined things, but it was a different mechanic than today where people really legally own ideas.

for the latter, as per the current way of things, it's public domain of course. who owned the rights to the artistic works back in the day? as i understand from the literature, noone really did. it still had a sense of belonging to people, belonging to names, there was brand recognition in a sense since artistry was indeed appreciated. but there's a difference between the association/affliation of ideas and the property of ideas! the difference between "you lied to me about this being a work by this person" and "you lied to me about you being able to produce something in this likeness"; the latter was generally very allowed.

We don't even know who made much of the art before the Renaissance and we know who made most of the art of the renaissance because it was made to order for somebody. The term patron of the arts in the renaissance was some one who paid artists to work for him Leonardo did much of his work for the Medicis. Michealangelo did a lot of his stuff for the Roman Catholic Church. Almost all the great artist and writers of antiquity had Patrons. In ancient days what today we would call a starving artist would have been some guy who was a brick layer during the day.