[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So what are the general benefits to the public of copying? It sounds to me that the benefit of copying is the unimpeded sharing of information.
And what a grand, wonderful world that will be. ;)
I can see that free music for everyone would seem to be in the public good. But where does this leave an artist? Unless there is state funding, artists would not receive any compensation for their work because the public interest in copying is paramount. In the unlikely event the U.S. government endorses such a socialistic ideology, how do we foster new art?
Why should it be the government or even necessarily _anyone's_ burden to insure the fostering of new art? It will happen by itself. Creative people create; it's something within them that they can no more suppress than breathe. And while present and future technologies change potential revenue models for artists, their process of creation and appreciation hasn't been changed. If anything, it should be the artists who should look to find ways to tap into this appreciation that are new (and cooperative)... not the government in strongarming the populace to retain the methods that are old (and unenforcable).
At this point, can artists only expect to make a living by performing? Or do they all need to find a day job? If established artists are less able to focus on their creations full time, does this proposal really act in the public good?
Recording artists could revert to being paid to perform, lecture or teach; just as they have been for thousands of years. The only thing being rescinded is something that they only (relatively) recently received; something that they received due to the nature of the technology of distribution of the time. It wasn't feasible for ordinary citizens to duplicate records, nor until recently CDs. But that has changed, and the public has gained an important freedom because of it. Nothing can justify denying the public important freedoms. As Abraham Lincon put it, "Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail." Property rights are meant to advance human well-being, not as an excuse to disregard it. The genie has already been let out of the bottle. People -- once they learn how to copy something -- will continue to do so. Just like once presented with the option of an automobile we didn't go back to the buggy, or return to steam engines, or a thousand other technological advances that made some other way of doing a thing obsolete. All important social changes were brought upon us through the advent of some technology... and the internet and digital media are two such technologies that are fundamentally and irrevocably changing the way that humans exchange information.
American capitalism and the U.S. constitution are essentially incompatible.
American capitalism and the idea of intellectual property in 2001 are basically incompatible. Capitalism is primarily a property & services based system. Tossed upon an electronic canvas where property loses its meaning -- where the concept that I can "give" someone something without me losing it, and they in turn can give it to everyone else in the world so that we all have the same thing... is anathema to any financial models that we've been accustomed to since as long as we can remember. And the thing is that this is a _good_ thing; something that should be strived for at every level. One person suffers a lack of income so that an entire society benefits, vs. one person getting rich while everyone else lies wanting? Which is more profitable for the individual and which more profitable for society? But then, the rich make the laws and hold the reigns on the media engines that attempt to indoctrinate the public otherwise... - Craig
