Copyright Does Not Help Artists; Nina's Adventures.

See http://questioncopyright.org/nina_paley_sita_interview

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• none

[KAZVorpal]

@soaresdanniel Government's sole legitimate function is to protect your natural rights, which means the choices you have in nature, from violation by others.

Imposing a monopoly over the communication of any idea the government deems protectable is not an extension of natural rights, but a violation of them.

And you demonstrate the arbitrary nature of this monopoly, when you note that at some mysterious point the singer will be benefiting too much for some government official, and be censored.

[soaresdanniel]

@KAZVorpal it's also not "natural" that the government has the monopoly of force and provides the police to protect against physical violence or even just stealing physical property. The natural thing would be like the cavemen did, wooden clubs, rocks to the head and all that. But I guess in these case it's ok. Thugs might disagree, anyway.

BTW, it's not a copyright infringement to just sing songs you've listened to, unless you do that for profit/mass audience.

[KAZVorpal]

@extremophile Nothing is being "abolished"; governments create a monopoly that is not natural in the first place. If you sing a song you just made up, everyone else around you has a natural right to sing the same song, now that they know it.

[extremophile]

@GideonKlok yeah, so abolishing the artists' rights over their work is how to help them. Artists' copyrights over their work are like chains that imprison them. Without it, the middlemen and the corporations won't be able to exploit the artists' work anymore, having most of the profit.

And many actually believe it. That's depressing. What comes next? "Black people's right to be free the cause of their present-day maladies. Abolish their right for freedom, so they can finally be free".

[GideonKlok]

@animateclay What she is talking about is that the system these middlemen have build favors the goals of these middlemen, they are not to the advantage of any artist. The artists are only used to line the pockets of these middlemen.

[animateclay]

What she is talking about is cutting out middle men who do distribution and copyrighting. Therefore you increase your income by your sales etc. She demonizes them, but what if an artist doesn't have the same skills and needs an agency or corperation to do the business aspects and selling of their work? To hell with them for using that system? What if they could benefit 100X using that method instead? Would they be less moral, or maybe even evil?