Should Intellectual Property exist?

[Akka]

Just as an aside, I'd like to point that copyright and authorship laws you're all talking about are mainly the US ones, which 1) are pretty effed-up and 2) not universal.
The concept of intellectual property is sound, the implementation is the problem, and the problem tends to come from these laws being entirely focused on "how to milk the most money".

 

[Zardnaar]

Just as an aside, I'd like to point that copyright and authorship laws you're all talking about are mainly the US ones, which 1) are pretty effed-up and 2) not universal.
The concept of intellectual property is sound, the implementation is the problem, and the problem tends to come from these laws being entirely focused on "how to milk the most money".

Pretty much. Communist and socialist types don't seem to want to share their bank details or social security for some strange reason.

 

[amadeus]

Pretty much. Communist and socialist types don't seem to want to share their bank details or social security for some strange reason.

There’s a differentiation in socialist thought between what they call “personal property” and “private property.”

A photo album, a sofa, a 24 pack of beer—these are not things that would be owned collectively: the industrial machinery, trucks, farmland; the things used to make things for consumption are what they say should be socialized.

 

[Plains-Cow]

But no one has made this argument that a copyright should or even could exist in perpetuity. I also don’t think that things must necessarily be drawn to the ultimate of logical conclusions—there is little I see that is inherent in man itself, so imposing a seemingly arbitrary limit on copyright is just a matter of balancing the maximizing of utility with the ability to reasonably enforce it within the constraints of time and resources.

Not as a specific reply to your post, but I think some of this could be cleared up by defining that we are not limiting the intent of copyright to an idea, but the more easily identifiable mixing of ideas and labor to produce something—no one can seriously claim ownership to the sky or the color blue as someone did earlier in the thread.

Power seeks consolidation, so as copyright is established, it's inevitable that it evolves into what we have today. Just like you can either allow power to consolidate in the hands of capitalists or workers, so to does the concept of "intellectual property" seek to either be totally free or totally controlled.

You know that at the end of the day, everyone hand-wringing about copyright in any position of power is simply seeking to extract as much money as possible from the faulty notion that they "own" a thought.

For that matter, you cannot copyright anything in perpetuity (although current copyright lengths are, in my opinion, excessive), nor can you copyright an idea, only the specific execution thereof, that is, the work created based on that idea.

You can patent an idea, but that's even mote strictly time-limited than copyright and comes with a tradeoff where you have to divulge your idea to the government and public in exchange for time-limited exclusive right to it (after which it becomes available to all) - so the point is *precisely* about NOT owning ideas forever.

Likewise, you can trademark in perpetuity (provided you keep using the trademark and renewing it), but that's limited to an identifying symbol, name or mark that uniquely identifies your business venture and not just "an idea". Has more to do with fraud prevention and false advertising (preventing people from falsely misrepresenting themselves as you) than with ownership of idea.

Frankly I am thoroughly unconvinced that Plains Cow even understands the basics of intelectual property, given how much arguing with a strawman version of IP is happening here.

I understand the basics just fine. IP is something that is used to beat people over the head regularly in every way possible. There isn't a "better way" to implement it when it always leads to what we have today. Drug manufacturers, music producers, scientists, and more make defending copyright and acquiring new IPs more important than doing the things they (supposedly) even want to do.

The system we have today produces an incredible amount of incredible art that we can consume nearly for free and on demand.

We do have better medicines, foods, and healthier populations. We've had IP in the USA since the beginning and it's all come a long way. What was medicine in 1790?

It's a little weird to look back on our system and not say it has produced better medicines for example that what came before.

In the end, if someone has to get a job they aren't spending that time creating. If they know they can be compensated for their effort, they are more likely to take that risk. And if they spend the rest of their life defending their IP like Don Imus, who employs a couple dozen people full time to make sure we don't hear the Eagles he can monetize his work, sure, that's wack, but the initial incentive to have created it in the first place matters. That there is anything to defend in the first place comes from the environment that brought it forth.

Like there are two problems with intellectual property:
1) it is problematic in theory
2) even if it was perfect in theory, it is abusive in practice separately of the theory

But to get rid of intellectually property completely doesn't take us to a good theory either, and doesn't remove that there will still be abuse in the creation, distribution, and consumption of ideas.

Both getting rid of it and keeping it as is has problems that are describable in basic economic principles (rent seeking by keeping it, underproduction by getting rid of it). So I would want a new system to address those issues.

I offered one earlier in this thread. Alternatives or complements could include state subsidy or more or less regulation here and there. But having IP be legally free, only guarded by physicality or not at all, is really mixed bag that brings a lot of bad with it.

Imagine you could only have vaccines on sight by armed guards. Imagine you didn’t have vaccines.

So an alternative is needed. A removal of IP without other major changes is going to have negative consequences, the kind that we created IP laws to prevent in the first place. Like we’ve already tried that.

We don't produce that art because of our system, it's despite our current system.

I am not saying we have a worse system than feudalism. I'm saying copyright is an ever-worsening concept. Notice how it only goes in one way. Worse. Why is that? Is it because we just need "good" copyright people in place to make sure that everything is fair? The idea that a country can have a song-based economy, or a painting-based economy, is something that you'd find ludicrous, I'm sure. However, the idea that microeconomics justifies copyright because on a personal level an artist should be able to enforce IP laws, because of "abuse in the creating, distribution, and consumption of ideas" will still occur anyway?

IP laws weren't created to help the working class. They were created as a way to consolidate more money for the bourgeoisie at the expense of the worker and also act as a "pulling the ladder up" secondary effect.

My bad, I technically said critique capitalism. This post.

Socialism isn't communism, but leaving that because that tends to annihilate threads (and I like this one), my point is that copyright abuses stem from capitalism. If you eject copyright into the void, capitalism would find other things to abuse. And the individuals - the creatives - that need to exist under capitalism would have even less protections than they already do.

Ejecting copyright is as much as a moral good as ejecting other abuses in society. One day, people will look back on copyright the way we look back on serfdom and shake their heads. Copyright is feudalism for ideas, which is even creepier to think about because what sort of evils will wealthy folks do in an attempt to "control" the spread of thoughts?

 

[Plains-Cow]

Pretty much. Communist and socialist types don't seem to want to share their bank details or social security for some strange reason.

I genuinely don't understand this critique, and in good faith I'd like you to explain it, because stealing tokens that are supposed to represent physical goods is super different than copying a song or a game or a book. If a college writes a book, am I literally stealing their money if I photocopy the book from the library? Do I need to pay them a portion of the cost if I only copy one page? What if I copy my own physical books that I bought?

The idea that somehow copying things = stealing money directly from a bank account is the most mind-blowing thing.

 

[AmazonQueen]

In an example from today's headlines: Taylor Swift lost her control of her first 6? album's content because they were sold for big money. So what is she doing? She is re-recording them under a label that she controls. Her fans are now re-buying all those albums. FU capitalism!

I'm not sure how thats a FU to capitalism. Capitalism loves selling you the same thing again (and again and again in Skyrims case).

 

[Plains-Cow]

I'm not sure how thats a FU to capitalism. Capitalism loves selling you the same thing again (and again and again in Skyrims case).

Companies are also incentivized to make things that don't last! They also then try to milk you by selling a warranty that's on top of their planned obsolescence!

 

[AmazonQueen]

Companies are also incentivized to make things that don't last! They also then try to milk you by selling a warranty that's on top of their planned obsolescence!

At least this doesn't apply to intellectual property, but yes.
We have things in our house that my parents bought moving into their first home over 60 years ago and they are still fine.
Compare this to a less than 10 years old cooker, just out of warranty, that we can't get spare parts for because its "obsolete".

 

[Evie]

And here you go again conflating a wide variety of distinct intelectual property systems into one weird mismash of multiple regimes.

You understand the strawman you created, not the reality.

(Here, in particular, you're looking at the actions of patent trolls - that's patent law - and lobbing them in under copyright (copyright law), which has seldom suffered from that particular problem despite your confident claims otherwise.)

 

[Plains-Cow]

And here you go conflating a wide variety of distinct intelectual property systems into one weird mismash of multiple regimes.

You understand the strawman you created, not the reality.

You can't expect me to understand what you're talking about if you won't explain it to me.

 

[Crezth]

And here you go again conflating a wide variety of distinct intelectual property systems into one weird mismash of multiple regimes.

You understand the strawman you created, not the reality.

(Here, in particular, you're looking at the actions of patent trolls - that's patent law - and lobbing them in under copyright (copyright law), which has seldom suffered from that particular problem despite your confident claims otherwise.)

What makes an intellectual property system and what are the major groups primarily interested in having them? What are the shared interests of those groups? What are the conflicting interests? What dynamic results?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm not sure how thats a FU to capitalism. Capitalism loves selling you the same thing again (and again and again in Skyrims case).

My point was that she undercut the big music industry efforts of buying and selling rights to the highest bidder by taking back those rights for herself and getting her fans to support her efforts. Yes she is recapturing the profits from her creation efforts and getting richer while diminishing the value of her old catalog that was sold off for others to profit from.

 

[Evie]

Yelling at strawmen rather than asking questions seldom encourages others to provide explanations.

As to Crezth's question, that's...a broad and weirdly phrased question; I'm not sure what you're looking for. I'll give some indications that I believe to be relevant, but I may be wrong.

So, beyond the obvious (the state make intellectual properties systems, like any other law), I will begin by pointing out that in almost all forms, copyright, patent and trademark as concept all have their origins long before the rise of the corporate-industrial world order: the concept of a unique identifying mark that identified a good as having been produced by one specific creator emerges at least as far back as medieval artisans; that of an inventor being granted a limited monopoly to the use of their invention likewise (maybe even before), appearing in medieval times; and the concept that the author and publisher of a work should not be undercut by rivals republishing their worl behind them emerges shortly after the Printing Press. Of the three, patents (inventor's monopoly) was codified in law at least by the time of Renaissance Venice, likely earlier; Copyright took legal form over the course of the eighteenth century; and only trademark emerges into law in a firmly industrial-capitalist society dominated by recognizable modern corporations, in the late nineteenth century.

In general, the beneficiaries were, by and large, artisans and creators, since the kind of large investors-centered business ventures with armies of lawyers' we're familiar with were largely still in infancy at this point. It allowed those who took the actual material risks and did the actual work to benefit from their own creations, rather than watching other people who had done very little swoop in and reap the profit on the work these people had done.

What makes these systems different from each other is their purposes and methods. They protect different things (trademark protect symbols, copyright protects works and patents protect ideas), in different manners (trademark generally require a risk of confusion with the trademark owner; copyright prevent copying a substantial part of the work; and patents protect any use of the patented idea), for different periods (trademark is renewable at will, so in theory can be forever; copyright is a one-time protection good for an extended term, and patent is a one-time protection for a limited term), for different reasons (trademark laws aim to prevent impersonation, copyright law to protect an author right to benefit from their work, and patent law to incentivize inventors and researchers to share their ideas with the world while also letting them benefit from their work).

Unrelated, what IS an idea that was squarely created by, and for the benefit of, capitalist corporate interests is the notion that artists, inventors and other creators SHOULDN'T be in it for the money. That their real reward is the satisfaction of creation and monetary rewards are unimportant in comparison, not something they should strive for, unless they want to be sell-outs who care morr about money than artistic integrity. Likewise the glorification of the artist struggling in poverty as the true artist. That is a naked excuse to devalue the work of creators to the benefit of investors.

Consequenrly, so-called opponent of the corporate capitalist approach to art really shouldn't be repeating that one.

 

[Zardnaar]

There’s a differentiation in socialist thought between what they call “personal property” and “private property.”

A photo album, a sofa, a 24 pack of beer—these are not things that would be owned collectively: the industrial machinery, trucks, farmland; the things used to make things for consumption are what they say should be socialized.

Theft is theft. If you invent something doesn't bother me of you have exclusive rights for a nit. Current laws are not like that though.

Lifetime for individuals say 25 years for a corporation would be my happy space. Maybe lifetime+25 years in the event of untimely death.

 

[Evie]

Somewhere in the vicinity of lifetime OR fixed X length, whichever is longer is my sweet spot. If they live longer they get longer, if they don't they still get the fixed length, and corporations always get the fixed length since they're not alive.

How long exactly fixed length should be is something I'm somewhat open-minded aBout; fifty starts to feel like a bit much, twenty feels like it might be a little short, so somewhere between those two would be my best guess.

 

[danjuno]

Patents here in the US are 20 years.

I also found something of note on Wikipedia on the list of copyright laws by country:

The Berne Convention stipulates that the duration of the term for copyright protection is the life of the author plus at least 50 years after their death. For some categories of works, the minimum duration is shorter: for example, the minimum term for applied art is 25 years, movies have a minimum term of 50 years. Most countries have opted for a longer term of protection, as permitted.

Under the Convention, the duration of copyright depends on the length of the author's life. Berne specifies that copyright exists a minimum of 50 years after the author's death, while a number of countries, including the European Union and the United States, have extended that to 70 years after the author's death. A small number of countries have extended copyright even further, with Mexico having the lengthiest term at 100 years after the author's death.

Any major reform in the length of copyrights will involve untangling a great deal of international bureaucracy.

FWIW as long as we live in a capitalist society and can't avoid IP, I think Creative Commons provides a good deal of flexibility.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I genuinely don't understand this critique, and in good faith I'd like you to explain it, because stealing tokens that are supposed to represent physical goods is super different than copying a song or a game or a book. If a college writes a book, am I literally stealing their money if I photocopy the book from the library? Do I need to pay them a portion of the cost if I only copy one page? What if I copy my own physical books that I bought?

The idea that somehow copying things = stealing money directly from a bank account is the most mind-blowing thing.

There are people who do think exactly that - that photocopying should be illegal because even if you only copy one page, you're depriving the publisher of profit and the author of whatever royalties they might get from the sale of the book.

Every book has a blurb asserting that it may not be copied. At the moment, I'm holding a copy of Rissa and Tregare, by F.M. Busby. On the copyright/printing history page, it says: "This book may not be reproduced in whole, or in part, by mimeograph or any other means, without permission." Then follows the publisher's address if you want clarification or to ask for permission.

There's a difference, though. This book by Busby is a science fiction novel, and when I bought it, the price was a whole, whopping $2.95 CAD, back in the '80s. The American price listed on the front cover was $2.75 US; this is normal in Canada to have two prices listed on books.

You can't even get this book second-hand now for $2.95, even if buying in a physical store as opposed to Amazon Marketplace. So even though I don't hesitate to recommend that people read Busby's novels, I know full well that they're not easy to find at a reasonable price anymore, and haven't been for many years. Busby stopped writing in the '90s and died in the early '00s. I consider myself fortunate to have met and had conversations with both him and his wife at a convention in the late '80s.

Now take the case of college/university textbooks. They're ungodly expensive. They were insanely expensive even back in the early-mid 1980s, when I did most of my college courses. The students complained to a couple of the instructors about the long list of textbooks we were expected to buy, when in some cases we'd only need a couple of specific chapters.

One instructor shrugged and told us to either find a copy in the library and photocopy the chapters or get the book from the college bookstore, read the chapters, and then return the book (returns were allowed within 7 days). Another told us to go to the bookstore and read it there (yeah, that would go over well with the staff... ).

Some of us went the photocopying route. Some did the buy-read-return route. Some of us made a textbook-sharing agreement with our study groups.

And at no time did any of us give a fraction of a damn about copyright or that by sharing books or photocopying that we were breaking the law (technically we were). Those books would have run us another couple of hundred dollars, which none of us could afford.

I remember being grateful to my geography instructor when he told me not to bother buying the latest edition of the textbook that was listed in the course outline. He said there wasn't enough of a difference between them to justify the expense and he knew I was on a tight budget, and that the previous edition would do fine. So I used the previous edition, and it turns out that the "difference" that resulted in a new edition, and a hefty price tag of over $50 was just a few sentences in one chapter - information that wasn't earthshakingly new or couldn't be found elsewhere (I'm one of these odd people who reads atlases and geography books for fun).

I made a nice little profit on textbooks one year. There's one particular one that was always used by the various sociology instructors: Invitation to Sociology. It's a small book that at that time came with a price tag of over $8.00. That sounds like peanuts now, but back then it was a lot for such a small book.

One day I was in my favorite second-hand bookstore when I noticed multiple copies of this book. They were priced at $2 each, so after checking the college bookstore to see if the book was still going to be used, I went back to the second-hand place and bought up all the copies. Then I advertised them for sale at a price that was more than what I'd paid but noticeably less than what they would have to pay in the college bookstore (second-hand books are how a lot of people got through their classes, though you had to be careful that they were the correct edition). Since I had half a dozen copies, it added up to enough to let me get one of the other books I needed. I'd already taken that sociology course so I didn't need any of them myself.

Other instances of book-copying included the manual for Civ I. The SCA friends who taught me how to play Civ I gave me copies of the game disks and let me borrow the manual. I knew I'd have to return the manual at some point so I took it to the photocopying place that I used to do the newsletters I was editing and publishing at the time (one for the Shire and another for the Star Trek Society). It took time, but I got that entire manual copied, and returned it to the owners. One of them looked at me, flabbergasted, and asked how I'd managed to copy an entire book without the staff stopping me. I told her that I'd gone to a machine off in a corner and just got on with it - and since the price is per page, I doubt they'd care about it much. They might have noticed if I'd gone in with a whole stack of books at once and did all of them, but one gaming manual? Nope.

And then there's the case of craft books. When you get a group of crafters together, do you make everyone buy a copy of the pattern books you're going to use, or do you save them money by photocopying the specific patterns and distributing them for free (or maybe just enough to cover the photocopying amount)?

As someone who owns a HUGE amount of pattern books, I'm all for saving money. But as a creator of original patterns, this is why I never submitted any of them for possible publication. As mentioned previously, a dedicated and determined crafter could take one of my physical items and reverse-engineer it to come up with a pattern. It would mean painstakingly counting every single stitch to come up with the size and shape of the canvas, making careful notes about which colors and shades of yarn and floss I'd used, and then try to make a pattern (you can make patterns with computer software now, but I still prefer the old method of graph paper and pencil). And even then you'd probably never be able to re-create it perfectly because of the techniques I use to cut the canvas that most people don't use, sew it together (not one of my projects has ever used glue unless it was a bookmark or magnet), and the finishing techniques that I've never seen anyone but myself use.

When you consider how easy it is now to share patterns, actually publishing them is like giving them away. Some people do downloadable patterns on Etsy or other sites, where you buy the right to download the pattern and print it yourself. I don't understand how they make that profitable, since the price to download one pattern is more than the price of a whole book of patterns. That said, I have paid to download patterns, but from an actual craft company, and only when they're having a sale.

 

[Crezth]

So, beyond the obvious (the state make intellectual properties systems, like any other law), I will begin by pointing out that in almost all forms, copyright, patent and trademark as concept all have their origins long before the rise of the corporate-industrial world order: the concept of a unique identifying mark that identified a good as having been produced by one specific creator emerges at least as far back as medieval artisans; that of an inventor being granted a limited monopoly to the use of their invention likewise (maybe even before), appearing in medieval times; and the concept that the author and publisher of a work should not be undercut by rivals republishing their worl behind them emerges shortly after the Printing Press. Of the three, patents (inventor's monopoly) was codified in law at least by the time of Renaissance Venice, likely earlier; Copyright took legal form over the course of the eighteenth century; and only trademark emerges into law in a firmly industrial-capitalist society dominated by recognizable modern corporations, in the late nineteenth century.

In general, the beneficiaries were, by and large, artisans and creators, since the kind of large investors-centered business ventures with armies of lawyers' we're familiar with were largely still in infancy at this point. It allowed those who took the actual material risks and did the actual work to benefit from their own creations, rather than watching other people who had done very little swoop in and reap the profit on the work these people had done.

What makes these systems different from each other is their purposes and methods. They protect different things (trademark protect symbols, copyright protects works and patents protect ideas), in different manners (trademark generally require a risk of confusion with the trademark owner; copyright prevent copying a substantial part of the work; and patents protect any use of the patented idea), for different periods (trademark is renewable at will, so in theory can be forever; copyright is a one-time protection good for an extended term, and patent is a one-time protection for a limited term), for different reasons (trademark laws aim to prevent impersonation, copyright law to protect an author right to benefit from their work, and patent law to incentivize inventors and researchers to share their ideas with the world while also letting them benefit from their work).

All right, let's stop here. Thank you for writing all this out; I brought it up so that we could critically dissect the origins and purposes of "copyright." You quite correctly identify that originally copyright systems existed in different economic, social, and production contexts. But if you can notice a pattern in the examples you brought up, most of the first "modern forms" of trademark and copyright law do crop up starting in the 15th century, at the forefront of the long transition to the early modern period including capitalism. They emerged, in other words, to address the needs they ended up addressing: needs that would extend a mark that was originally just intended as a mark of origin or quality, into a "trademark" that was the exclusive property of an artisan or merchant combine.

The question of "why?" is answered by realizing that these artisans were protecting their reputation in an open marketplace. It is only because of their participation in this marketplace - in fact, their need to do so - that it became necessary to protect their "competitive advantage" (in this case: their assurance that they are who they are).

This is important because now, we have to think about how this system has adapted under modern capitalism, and why it exists. Plains-Cow is criticizing copyright as we know it. There may have been a great case for copyright 600 years ago, but times change.

Unrelated, what IS an idea that was squarely created by, and for the benefit of, capitalist corporate interests is the notion that artists, inventors and other creators SHOULDN'T be in it for the money. That their real reward is the satisfaction of creation and monetary rewards are unimportant in comparison, not something they should strive for, unless they want to be sell-outs who care morr about money than artistic integrity. Likewise the glorification of the artist struggling in poverty as the true artist. That is a naked excuse to devalue the work of creators to the benefit of investors.

Consequenrly, so-called opponent of the corporate capitalist approach to art really shouldn't be repeating that one.

For example... why does an artist sell their work?

From one perspective it's a choice they make in order to spread awareness of their brand, their own artistic taste and sensibilities. They share their work, and others who resonate or respond to it will then pay for it, and so contribute to that artists' creation of more work. This is the "freedom" element of capitalism, that the artist is "free" to sell their work and try to make a living. Copyright exists so that the artist can sell their work as themselves authentically, with a case against anyone who tried to pirate their identity. In theory, this allows the artist to participate in the economy and trade their skills for a living.

In reality, the artist generally has no choice about selling their work. Some artists, who can afford all their own expenses, do have just such a choice; but any artist who does not, who is forced to make a wage to pay for their rent, food, and utilities, has been placed into this situation where they must sell their art, or sell some other form of labor on the side of their art. In the latter situation, if the art does not have commercial value, the artist can only produce it on their own time - which they may have none of.

The artist who can sell their art is totally at the mercy of the art market, or more accurately, the graphic design-labor market.

However, here is the kicker: the copyright provides no value or protection to the artist at all once the Work is sold.

Instead, the copyright now provides protection to the new owner of it. The artist accepted whatever negotiated rate for the production of the art up-front, and in exchange the new rights owner has a monopoly over that art for all their own commercial purposes. This is potentially many-multiple-times more valuable than the cost of producing the art (the wage paid to the artist), and for decades hence is the sole province of the buyer.

Arguably, commercial art is all less valuable if it is not possible to sell exclusive rights to it. All art that is not commercial is then strictly worthless for any artist attempting to make a living.

Your so-called opponents of the capitalist approach are not opposed to artists earning a living, they're opposed to the capitalization of art placing the incentives on churning out the same Mackey Mouse crap forever, while any artist motivated by making art has to be independently wealthy and idle to actually do so. "Art" then does not get produced because of artistry except incidentally; it gets produced because of corporate methods for producing art!

Yelling at strawmen rather than asking questions seldom encourages others to provide explanations.

How is cryptically alluding to someone else's lack of knowledge more helpful or informative than yelling at strawmen?

Theft is theft. If you invent something doesn't bother me of you have exclusive rights for a nit. Current laws are not like that though.

Well, current laws say that if you invent something, a large corporation with more lawyers and money than God can sue you and take it from you if they can prove to a court that they published a similar-enough seeming thing in the 20,000 or so patents they filed last year, before you; almost three of which are genuinely original.

 

[Hygro]

We don't produce that art because of our system, it's despite our current system.

People will always create art. Of course. But we definitely produce art "because" of our system on every level. There's no edge to that discussion.

The volume and quality changes. Relative to tech and the influences before it, music really suffered with the collapse of revenue in the 2000s. When revenues came back, more and better music came back. Bigger risks from major labels, more indie artists pushing the boundaries, and so on.

There's endless ways to look at it, but "the system" absolutely 1000% pushes art. It grows and shrinks, improves and suffers with the money involved. And involved at what stage? In the 00s you could only make a living touring. Streaming revenue recreated the ability for people to make a living just recording. Increased ticket sales, no doubt helped by a million articles in corporate media telling millennials "experiences are worth more than things" have created bigger more inspired shows, keeping more artists in the game.

And then there's like, what art? The defunding of music programs really, really changed how people sing, and how people listen. You have artists publishing on soundcloud for free, which exists because investors thought it would pay off, which really changed the quality of music, and volume available.

The system changes. How society approaches drugs has changed dramatically, and with it, music. The rebirth of psychedelia and the simultaneous growth of investor subsidized "free" music on soundcloud, the growth of streaming revenue, in the context of a new festival culture, with $200 tickets and 100,000 attendees, changed how wild pop music could sound in the early 2010s from really basic to really cool.

"The system" produces new instruments and techniques, these technologies completely change what genres even exist and are popular. The guitar amp started so that a guitar could fill an auditorium. The manipulation of its feedback became its own instrument, which became its own basis for genre, which gave rise to synthesizers, which gave rise to new instruments. Samplers and sequencers changed who could record. You went from needing music lessons in the era of jazz to needing internet browsing skills today. The music changes with it, and I for one do not feel it's "all the same" whether I'm listening to a traveling lute bard or in crowded warehouse jacking a distorted 909.

Everything affects everything. Our IP system wack. But its existence as a concept is not. You're talking to someone pro piracy, pro "information wants to be free", but what makes people do what they do is complex. If you have any suggestions for a good system I'm all ears.

 

[Crezth]

Everything affects everything. Our IP system wack. But its existence as a concept is not. You're talking to someone pro piracy, pro "information wants to be free", but what makes people do what they do is complex. If you have any suggestions for a good system I'm all ears.

Pay people to live and abolish private ownership. IP is fundamentally at cross-purposes with itself and creates a messed-up relationship between artist and art consumer. Sheeeeit, even the fact we use the term "art consumer" should tell you how trivial art has become. Are we really enjoying "art," or are we just doping ourselves?

Like you're getting excited talking about all the creativity and originality that's gone down in the creative world, about the amazing things record labels and artists have done coming together. About the big shows and fancy lights. But you're not doing a whole lot of talking about publishers knocking artists off the credits for early records; you're not talking about the bitter fight artists have made to start getting the trickles of residuals they're sometimes entitled to now; you're not talking about how much violence Marvel movies do to the very idea of cinema every time they "grace" our theaters.

Make no mistake, art will always be made. But in this case, art exists despite capitalism. It exists because it is a human activity to make art. Regardless of the extent it's been cut, measured, weighed, and pounded, it is not IP that has put the glory of humanity before you, but raw human creativity which is just being filtered through a machine for pigs.