Do you have any evidence at all that there are less artists making living today off their art than in the 19th century? Ok, how about early 20th century?
The 50,000 downloads thing and 5,000 sales- most likely if it weren't for those 50,000 downloads, the 5,000 sales would not have happened. When you're an artist or an author the worst thing is not that someone illegally enjoys your work, but that nobody even tries to. It's not pirating but complete and utter obscurity that's an author's worst nightmare.
I have never ever illegally downloaded any music. I have not copied or shared any music, ever. I thought "burning" a cd involved fire; I knew it didn't make sense but teenagers do lots of stupud stuff so I didn't question it. The music industry should love me right? Wrong! I also don't spend any money to support the music industry in any way shape or form. If everyone was like me, it couldn't survive.
And finally, behind this desire to see work enter the public domain and outrage at "rights stolen from the public" and stiffling of creativity, there's in fact a big deal of hypocrisy. What people really want are those works available for free. This phenomenon is getting worse and worse. First it's part of the music industry that's back to 19th century conditions, were independant artists find it more and more difficult to make a living because of piracy (artists would use to scrap a living selling 20 or 30 thousand copies now face 50,000 illegal downloads and 5000 sales - having to take day jobs to survive), more and more newspapers are vanishing because people seek their news from free sources and disregard the professional qualifications of real journalists - and the role the press plays in democracies be damned, it's getting more and more difficult to buy works in certain genre (ex: anime) in brick and mortar shops because illegal downloads have crashed the niche markets, and now with e-readers, it's book piracy that's becoming commonplace.
The 50,000 downloads thing and 5,000 sales- most likely if it weren't for those 50,000 downloads, the 5,000 sales would not have happened. When you're an artist or an author the worst thing is not that someone illegally enjoys your work, but that nobody even tries to. It's not pirating but complete and utter obscurity that's an author's worst nightmare.
I have never ever illegally downloaded any music. I have not copied or shared any music, ever. I thought "burning" a cd involved fire; I knew it didn't make sense but teenagers do lots of stupud stuff so I didn't question it. The music industry should love me right? Wrong! I also don't spend any money to support the music industry in any way shape or form. If everyone was like me, it couldn't survive.
And finally, behind this desire to see work enter the public domain and outrage at "rights stolen from the public" and stiffling of creativity, there's in fact a big deal of hypocrisy. What people really want are those works available for free. This phenomenon is getting worse and worse. First it's part of the music industry that's back to 19th century conditions, were independant artists find it more and more difficult to make a living because of piracy (artists would use to scrap a living selling 20 or 30 thousand copies now face 50,000 illegal downloads and 5000 sales - having to take day jobs to survive), more and more newspapers are vanishing because people seek their news from free sources and disregard the professional qualifications of real journalists - and the role the press plays in democracies be damned, it's getting more and more difficult to buy works in certain genre (ex: anime) in brick and mortar shops because illegal downloads have crashed the niche markets, and now with e-readers, it's book piracy that's becoming commonplace.
Why Johnny Can't Read Any New Public Domain Books In The US: Because Nothing New Entered The P.D.
03/01/2012 11:33:34 PM
- 1868 Views
I find it difficult to see this as stealing rights from the public.
04/01/2012 11:15:35 AM
- 998 Views
Are you arguing for illegal use of legally protected works?
04/01/2012 09:34:18 PM
- 926 Views
No. I'm saying that keeping works in copyright doesn't stop them from being read, watched, etc.
04/01/2012 10:24:50 PM
- 904 Views
That's not the point, though.
05/01/2012 01:05:17 PM
- 980 Views
????
05/01/2012 03:22:58 PM
- 946 Views
Re: ????
05/01/2012 04:04:21 PM
- 983 Views
That isn't inspiration that wanting to use the popularity of the original to promote your work
05/01/2012 05:04:25 PM
- 950 Views
I don't get it.
04/01/2012 05:51:19 PM
- 1212 Views
You know those Jane Austen parodies? Only because Jane Austen is in the public domain.
04/01/2012 09:32:20 PM
- 1013 Views
Parody is actually covered by the legal definition of fair use so doesn't break copyright.
04/01/2012 10:28:08 PM
- 997 Views
I'm fairly sure the Jane Austen parodies do in fact use actual paragraphs... no? *NM*
04/01/2012 10:31:32 PM
- 525 Views
The zombies one doesn't precisely. It's somewhat modernised. I've not read the others.
04/01/2012 10:32:59 PM
- 934 Views
Yes, they take tons of text from actual books. Contrast this with Ms. Rowling's reaction. *NM*
05/01/2012 07:01:46 PM
- 428 Views
If there's zero chance of needing a lawyer at some point, it's way more likely to actually happen.
04/01/2012 10:43:23 PM
- 1032 Views
Answering you specifically
05/01/2012 04:57:33 PM
- 946 Views
Patents and copyrights aren't meant to last forever (shouldn't, anyway)
04/01/2012 10:33:30 PM
- 981 Views
I know they aren't. I don't necessarily agree that they shouldn't though.
05/01/2012 05:01:05 PM
- 891 Views
Re: I know they aren't. I don't necessarily agree that they shouldn't though.
06/01/2012 12:47:50 AM
- 916 Views
That is a very confusing article.
04/01/2012 10:19:22 PM
- 1039 Views
Works published between 1923 and 1978 are different
04/01/2012 10:25:16 PM
- 969 Views
Do you think it is right that Disney can protect its movies?
05/01/2012 05:29:08 PM
- 920 Views
Ok, what has movies Disney done lately that were on par with its classics? *NM*
05/01/2012 07:44:20 PM
- 413 Views
And speaking of Disney's classics...
05/01/2012 10:06:16 PM
- 1084 Views
Until Disney discovered and copyrighted them, they obviouslty didn't exist. *NM*
06/01/2012 12:58:55 AM
- 454 Views
OK why is that even a point of argument?
06/01/2012 02:42:47 PM
- 925 Views
No incentive to make great new works if they can just keep re-releasing Lion King in 3D *NM*
06/01/2012 09:45:38 PM
- 497 Views
I'm a lot older than your five year old, but I'm not sure I disagree Tangled is better.
06/01/2012 11:12:32 PM
- 975 Views
Well, if corporations are now people, then maybe their copyright could be different? *shrug*
05/01/2012 07:57:38 PM
- 1071 Views
Re: Well, if corporations are now people, then maybe their copyright could be different? *shrug*
06/01/2012 01:18:04 AM
- 976 Views
Can you back that up?
06/01/2012 04:17:35 AM
- 1097 Views
Re: Can you back that up?
06/01/2012 06:02:01 PM
- 883 Views
Artist/Singers used to *always* be on tour in order to make a living.
06/01/2012 09:34:44 PM
- 1183 Views