On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:05:36PM -0500, Gutenberg9443@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/6/2005 9:58:30 AM Mountain Standard Time, holden.mcgroin@dsl.pipex.com writes:
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 at 11:20:36 EST, Gutenberg9443@aol.com wrote:
For cryin' out loud, YOU CANNOT HAVE LABOR OF ANY KIND, WHITE COLLAR OR BLUE COLLAR, WITHOUT PAYING THE LABORER. Karl Marx and Jesus Christ agree on this, though they disagree as to how it should be done.
I'd not argue that some people in creative industries do work for similar reasons as your steelworker and waitress above. However, I would argue that the vast majority of people create not because they make a living that way but because they enjoy the act of creation. Every day, I meet people who write books (even ones that I'd consider worth publishing) but never send off a copy to any publishers or agents. Every day, I meet people who write, perform and record music not because they're secretly hoping for a contract from the record industry but because they enjoy making music and they enjoy that they can give people a little entertainment.
Goodie for them. I WRITE FULLTIME. Making a living is important to me. I am no longer physically capable of doing any other work. And I am sick and tired of this patronizing attitude from somebody who knows absolutely nothing whatever of the kind of work I do or the fact that it is extremely HARD work.
You two seem to get passionate, argue irrationally, and mix different kinds of problems here. This bogus (to me) argument often appears when people complain about the development of the sharing of material on P2P systems and the like: "artists (Artists!) need to be able to make a living, etc.". Either you are some kind of modern slave, and you do a job you don't like because you need the money: a contract promises in advance some money to you in exchange for your work. This can be blue-collar work or some command-blue-collar work, even creative works. Either you like what you are doing, and you would do it anyway (or if not, you are willing to take the risk to be successful or not). I agree most waitresses and steelworkers wouldn't do their job if they didn't need the money. Many people are unlucky enough to have to do a job they hate (or don't like) for this reason. I agree some (most?) creators would create (nearly as much or as well) no matter what. But some time creators and artists who advocate copyright laws to ensure their living give, in such discussions, the feeling that they want the society at large to pay them for their creation no matter how good or bas it is. A simple criterium (and maybe, the only one found until now, no matter how imperefct) is public success: either you work sells, and you are entitled to money, either you fail to please many, and why demand money for your work? Get a public or cultural institution to sign you up a contract before you start working on this obscure field, or forget the idea to be paid for it! Anne, you write fulltime, with no contract warranties. In the present situation, you make make ends meet and make a living with that. If copyright laws get less harsh as some people would like them to, you are afraid the balance will shift and you will not be able to make a living writing any more. Fine. So what? Laws are not supposed to be designed to give anybody a way of living; they should serve the public good and make life better for most. Many people would like to do nothing but their pet hobby and be paid for it, and can't do it. Maybe the society would be better off with shorter copyright terms, even though that would prevent some creators (like you) to live like they do now. If tomorrow copyright laws change and the new situation makes it impossible for you to keep making a living doing what you do now, you will know in advance. Whenever you choose to work on a new book, you will know what protection and money you can expect from laws and society (market, editors power, etc.). If that money is the only reason for you to create, then you won't create any more. Nobody will have lied to you or stolen you. This is the idea of non retroactivity of law. I guess (most) people who advocate changes in copyright law don't ask to change the law with retroaction. If tomorrow some brave governement listens to them and passes a law taking copyright protection down to 14 years or so, there will still be a big black cultural hole in the XXth century. Unless something really hard happens, like a revolution or a war (after all, copyright is one of the first industries in the world now, many wars have been fought on less than that). Even like that, your grand-children should be able to sue for breach of retroativity (unless some non-democratic governement takes place for long enough for all of them or for the case to be inwinnable). And if in the meantime you and your children will have been deprived of your "legitimate rights" because there was a war, a dictatorship or whatever, well, I can't see how to avoid brute force to prevail. This happened to many. When Michael Hart spoke in the offices of the French National Assembly last year, somebody asked him what would be *his* ideal copyright laws. He replied this: http://quatramaran.ens.fr/~blondeel/conf/2004-02-13-Hart-AssembleeNationale.... -=-=-= Question: In their place, what copyright laws would you have set up? Answer: My proposal is to design a program to predict sales curves. Database(?): when any book has sold, copyright expires. When a book is out of print, copyright expires. And print on demand dosn't count, we are not playing games here: the book has to be on a frequent shelf. That would give them the lion's share of the profit. Sales fall off fast. In 5, 10, 15, 20... 25 years, 99% of books have sold all they are ever gonna sell. After 5 years, 50% of books are out of print. -=-=-= (note: go up to the directory to find the speech he gave in UNESCO)