XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: candid@dontbother.invalid   
      
   Jim Gysin wrote:   
   > Frank Frank sent the following on 10/28/2009 4:11 AM:   
   >> Jim Gysin wrote:   
   >>> Dr Nancy's Sweetie sent the following on 10/26/2009 8:41 PM:   
   >>>> Somebody wrote, of copyrights:   
   >>>>> The current 105 year span (likely to be expanded again by Disney   
   >>>>> lobbying) is ridiculous.   
   >>>> "Jim Gysin " replied:   
   >>>>> Why?  Because it's not what you want?   
   >>>> The original justification is "to promote the progress of science and   
   >>>> useful arts", and I don't think a copyright term longer than the   
   >>>> average life expectancy does that.   
   >>> And FWIW, promoting progress wasn't the *only* original   
   >>> "justification," either.   
   >>   
   >> It's the only one stated in the Constitution.   
   >   
   > I didn't suggest otherwise.   
      
   So you concede that it's the only original justification now? Good.   
      
   >>>> I think the current copyright terms do the exact opposite: they   
   >>>> undermine creativity and useful arts.  Consider that Disney's animation   
   >>>> studio had produced drek for years, and the only way they were able to   
   >>>> rejuvenate themselves was to buy Pixar and let the Pixar people run the   
   >>>> place.  They hadn't had a decent original idea in years, because they   
   >>>> didn't NEED to: they are still profiting off Walt Disney's original   
   >>>> work, even though he's been dead for over 40 years.   
   >>> Is there a law that requires them to generate new ideas on a regular   
   >>> basis?  Does society have a "right" to expect it out of them?  Does   
   >>> society have some sort of claim on them?   
   >>   
   >> It doesn't seem unreasonable to require them to generate new ideas on   
   >> a regular basis IN ORDER TO GET PAID FOR IDEA-GENERATION ON A REGULAR   
   >> BASIS.   
   >>   
   >> If they want to quit, they can go ahead but they should then have to   
   >> find another line of work to bring home the bacon.   
   >   
   > Which is exactly what pirates and freeloaders and parasites are already   
   > encouraging artists to do.   
      
   No, they are not.   
      
   > I'm glad that you have a semblance of an understanding of disincentives.   
      
   It's a shame you don't. These so-called "parasites" are actually   
   commensal -- they neither help nor harm the host. In the case of   
   filesharing, the "host" (artist) does no marginal work per "freeloader"   
   nor is physically robbed of anything, so is not harmed. The artist is   
   not paid, so is not helped either. As far as the artist is concerned, it   
   is a null transaction. A null transaction is neutral, neither incentive   
   nor disincentive.   
      
   > And it's gonna get worse before it gets better.   
      
   What is? The misbehavior of the increasingly-desperate copyright lobby?   
   Probably, but eventually the big dinosaur businesses involved will die   
   off (and maybe a few will even learn to adapt) and everyone, artists   
   included, will be better off. Artists smart enough to jump off the   
   sinking ship of the RIAA and embrace other business models are already   
   better off than they ever were while signed with a major label.   
      
   > And then the Seamuses of the world   
      
   That name again! Who do you know named Seamus that irks you so much that   
   you compare everyone you disagree with to him?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)