| |||||||||||||
Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission cultureVilla: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culturePosted Jan 30, 2013 20:01 UTC (Wed) by dakas (guest, #88146)In reply to: Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture by tjc Parent article: Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture
> If copyright is revoked, many creators stop creating
Hardly. But since this would shut down an industry that has specialized on acting on behalf of the creators, ultimately the creators would spend more time, work, and worries on securing a living.
In the history of culture, copyright is a rather recent idea. It involves a transfer of rights and responsibilities, with results that are far from beneficial: hundreds of millions don't make a single popular artist more prolific or able to eat better. But they could benefit thousands of other artists. And a diverse and rich artistic background is necessary for actually growing inventive new material and expanding and developing culture.
(Log in to post comments)
Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture Posted Jan 31, 2013 21:42 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Hardly. But since this would shut down an industry that has specialized on acting on behalf of the creators, ultimately the creators would spend more time, work, and worries on securing a living. Somehow it works in the opposite direction with music: MP3 proliferations hit CD sales hard, but in the end "the creators" (you know, people who actually create music) have gotten bigger piece of a pie. I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but the fact that at least in one case the result is that "creators now spend less time, work, and worries on securing a living" is telling.
|
|||||||||||||