What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?

[VladTheImpaler]

Jack,
If I may ask, what do you do for a living and how old are you?

That is not a loaded question.
I sincerely want to know so that I may gain some context to your stance on copyright.
I've shared a snipet about my background and involvement on the business side of the arts, so it's only fair you return the favor.
I want to know where you are coming from.

[arebelspy]

If I may ask, what do you do for a living and how old are you?
...
I sincerely want to know so that I may gain some context to your stance on copyright.

I agree with basically everything Jack's posted, so to give you the background of someone who's coming from the same place: I am FIRE'd.  Was a teacher. 31 years old.

[boarder42]

I'm en engineer on jacks side of this copyright battle. 29 and 7 years til fire.

[arebelspy]

[Jack]

If I may ask, what do you do for a living and how old are you?

32, software engineer & civil engineer

I admit, my current job is writing proprietary software, but I see no contradiction. First of all, people would still need CAD software so somebody would be willing to support its creation -- maybe instead of a for-profit corporation I'd just be working for the government or a non-profit foundation. Or maybe the company would sell support or related cloud services or something (which it's moving to anyway). Second, if I couldn't make money writing software then I'd simply go back to designing roads for a living.

[MrDelane]

I promise I'm trying here... but I am just not understanding the 'anti-copyright' side of the argument.

I fear it's a case of the quote that someone posted earlier, about someone not being able to understand something when their salary depends on not understanding it.

Perhaps I need to keep rereading some of these posts - but I don't quite see how a copyright is analogous to censorship and monopoly.... any more than counterfeiting laws are analogous to censorship and monopoly.

[arebelspy]

I promise I'm trying here... but I am just not understanding the 'anti-copyright' side of the argument.

Have you read any arguments against copyright?

https://www.google.com/search?q=argument+against+copyright

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4

[boarder42]

CGP grey!!!!   Love his videos.

[MrDelane]

I promise I'm trying here... but I am just not understanding the 'anti-copyright' side of the argument.

Have you read any arguments against copyright?

https://www.google.com/search?q=argument+against+copyright

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4

No, I haven't.  The people in this thread seemed pretty passionate about the stance so I figured they could make the case themselves.  It's always been a bit offputting when you get into a conversation with someone and instead of explaining their beliefs they tell you go read someone else's argument for it - it kind of derails the 'dialogue' aspect of it.  Inevitably someone responds to something in an article or video that was linked and then the reply is "well it's not my argument, I just thought he/she had some good points."

I'm not unwilling to go read other stuff... and I will now.
I'll check out that video as soon as I get a chance.

I was just hoping for a good conversation here.

[MrDelane]

By the way - I realize this says nothing about the validity of copyrights in general, and I'm not trying to insinuate that it does, but it is kind of funny that you chose this strip to post, given Bill Watterson's extreme protection of his copyright on Calvin and Hobbes.

[MrDelane]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4

Okay - I watched the video and I still don't fully grasp the strength of this argument.
Perhaps I'm simply too deep in the other side.  To be fair, I make my living in a place that would not exist if we had no copyrights, and I have worked in the entertainment/creative field for the past couple of decades.  So maybe I've just been drinking the kool aid for too long.

The argument seems to boil down to the idea that someone has already had access to their idea for 'enough' time... or (heaven forbid) has already made 'enough' money off it.

I don't get it.

If I were to make something with my own two hands... say I'm a carpenter... should I only be able to claim ownership of it for a certain amount of time?   I'm assuming most people would say no, it's my property and I can do with it as I want and leave it to whomever I want when I die, at which point it would be their property.

However, if I create an entire universe, like in the case of Lucas, I should only be allowed to claim ownership of it for a short while?  Or only make a certain amount of money?

By the way - I always find it ironic that Star Wars is pulled into these discussions as the best example.  Lucas never would have made Star Wars if copyrights didn't exist.  He wanted to make Flash Gordon, but could not get the rights to it... so he was forced to either abandon his sci fi epic idea...or create a whole new universe.  Luckily, he chose to second option.  The video didn't mention that part of the history. Funny enough, thanks to the popularity of Star Wars, we eventually got a 'Flash Gordon' movie a few years later in 1980.

I can't help but feel that most of these arguments are being put forth by people who are not making their living off their ideas, or who see zero value in ideas.  I'm not saying that as a slight, I'm just pointing out what I've seen in this thread.

By the way - the video was a bit misleading, in my opinion.  Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella and all those old folk tales are still in the public domain.  Disney's creations may be copyrighted (animation, songs, etc) but the original tales continue to be in the public domain.  So, if anyone wants to make their own Cinderella, go for it.

[SwordGuy]

Both copyright and patent law are designed to protect the interests of two different groups:  creators and the public.

Both sets of laws provide specific protections to the creator for a specified period of time.   This is to encourage creators to create.

But the laws expire so that the rest of the public can benefit from those ideas/inventions in the way they best see fit.

Clearly, the US founding fathers recognized the importance of this concept because they put it into the US Constitution:

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

This is important because they recognized that an idea or invention was fundamentally different from property like land, cattle or gold.  Society needed to be able to adapt ideas and inventions in ways it saw fit to further improve life for us all.  Yet, if artists and inventors do not profit by their work, they will not be encouraged to do that work and will spend their efforts on something else.   

The laws were set up to attempt to balance those two competing interests.   We may argue that the balance has tilted to far one way or the other, but the basic reasoning behind copyright and patent law is fair to all parties.

Now, it's interesting that ownership of land isn't absolute.   Let's say you own some land and do nothing with it.  In fact, you take so little interest in it that you and your agents pay no attention to it.

In North Carolina, for example, if someone claims land they don't own, puts up clearly marked boundaries (such as a fence), and maintains exclusive use of that land for 20 years, they will own the land free and clear.  (Barring some exceptions for special circumstances.)  Other states and countries have similar laws.

Why?  Because it is in the state's and the public's interest that the land is put to use.  That interest is deemed to outweigh the property rights of someone who has taken such little interest in the land for the last 20 years that they didn't notice anyone was using it and just knock down the fence.

[arebelspy]

The argument seems to boil down to the idea that someone has already had access to their idea for 'enough' time... or (heaven forbid) has already made 'enough' money off it.

I don't get it.

There's huge benefit for the arts and creativity within the "public domain" idea.  Copyright stops that benefit.  It does allow the creator to profit.

The trick is setting the right balance between how long copyright should allow someone to profit while refusing to allow the public to benefit. 

A year of copyright is probably not enough time to allow someone to profit (IMO).  Life + 70 years is way too much IMO), harming the public and the arts via keeping things from the public domain.

How much is enough then, is the question in trying to find a balance.

IMO, if a work is not going to profit within the first 15 years, it probably won't.

Music, movies, etc. will still be profitable, even if music that was made in 2001 was just starting to be open in the public domain so people could riff off of it, make improvements, etc., the creators would have profited.  People are hungry enough for new material that no one is going to wait until things are 15 years old to consume them for free, unless they wouldn't have consumed in the first place.

By the way - the video was a bit misleading, in my opinion.  Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella and all those old folk tales are still in the public domain.  Disney's creations may be copyrighted (animation, songs, etc) but the original tales continue to be in the public domain.  So, if anyone wants to make their own Cinderella, go for it.

Hah.  Sure, in theory.  Try it.  You'll get sued so fast, even if you're basing it off of only stuff in the public domain, and no Disney parts.  How's an artist to afford to defend themselves?

[GuitarStv]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4

If I were to make something with my own two hands... say I'm a carpenter... should I only be able to claim ownership of it for a certain amount of time?   I'm assuming most people would say no, it's my property and I can do with it as I want and leave it to whomever I want when I die, at which point it would be their property.

However, if I create an entire universe, like in the case of Lucas, I should only be allowed to claim ownership of it for a short while?  Or only make a certain amount of money?

A better analogy with a carpenter is:  A carpenter builds a house and lives in it.  A guy down the street builds a similar looking house, so the carpenter sues the guy and then gets a court order to burn the new house to the ground.  It becomes illegal for anyone to build a similar house until 70 years after the death of the carpenter.

Those popular old folk tales you're referencing are in public domain now, but there's little reason to believe that this would ever be the case if they were written more recently.  Copyright has regularly been extended over the past fifty years and there's no sign that copyright extensions will stop extending in the future.

If copyright extended forever (and it does seem to be moving in this direction), all Christian churches would be in copyright violation and would have to get rid of their bibles / depictions of a dude on a cross / use of words attributed to Jesus.  These ideas and teachings would be owned by an Arabic Jewish family.  The modern usage of Santa Claus would be banned unless authorized by the living descendants of St. Nicholas (or if you want to go with the modern version, then the Coke company would own Santa).  Think of the millions of other similar cases, where culture would be damaged by extending copyright extremely far.  Look at modern characters that should be public domain but aren't, and are likely never going to be . . . Superman, The Flash, Batman, Mickey Mouse, etc.

There needs to be a balance of protection for artists and public benefit of art.  We've moved too far towards protection of artists over time.

[arebelspy]

And not even protection of artists, but of corporations, who buy up the copyright to things, have the money and power to enforce it, etc.

I'd be fine with a longer copyright, say, 30 years, if it was non-transferrable.

[GuitarStv]

And not even protection of artists, but of corporations, who buy up the copyright to things, have the money and power to enforce it, etc.

Valid point, when copyright extends past the death of an artist it's pretty hard to argue that the artist is benefiting from the money being collected for his creation.

[MrDelane]

There's huge benefit for the arts and creativity within the "public domain" idea.  Copyright stops that benefit.  It does allow the creator to profit.

What is the 'huge benefit' for the arts and creativity?
I feel like I still haven't heard any argument to support that, just a claim.

However, at the same time we're ignoring the original content that has been created because of copyrights.  As I mentioned, Star Wars wouldn't have existed if Flash Gordon had been in the public domain (which it would have been in your argument, since it was created in the 30s).  There are countless 'original' works out there just like that (granted, probably none more famous than Star Wars).

It seems to me that the biggest benefit for the arts and creativity is to encourage artists to create original works.
And one way to encourage it is to demonstrate that we live in a society that will value and protect that work.

Meanwhile (granted, anecdotally), we live in a world where everyone I know seems to complain of a lack of original content while we're being inundated with remakes, reboots, sequels and the like.  I'm not certain that the world would be a better place artistically if everyone could make their own Star Wars film.

[Nick_Miller]

Interesting arguments back and forth. Lots of smart people here. I like it.

But I think the central point is that content creators have to be able to profit from their work. So how do we accomplish this? If you are arguing against the IP status quo, what is your plan to make sure that people get paid? Believe me, writing a novel (that people actually want to read) is hard work. You could actually argue that it's "harder" than many (most?) other professional endeavors because of the massive amount of subjectivity involved.

And I'm not sure the "well the author doesn't lose a sale when I pirate his story because I never would have bought it anyway" works.

I mean, I could create a fact pattern where Homeowner leaves her door unlocked (oops!) and goes on vacation. Cat Woman comes in and takes all the shines, wearing them to various soirees, and then returning them to the Homeowner before the Homeowner returns. The Homeowner was never economically disadvantaged. She still has the jewelry. She doesn't know it was " borrowed." By the strict "no harm, no foul!" approach, did Cat Woman not commit a crime?

What about an example where an art thief steals a priceless painting that the Owner NEVER intended to sell, and the art thief even replaces the original with an almost perfect replica so that the Owner still gets all the enjoyment from viewing what he believes is the original? The Owner dies years later, never having been deprived because he was never going to sell it anyway.

[MrDelane]

A better analogy with a carpenter is:  A carpenter builds a house and lives in it.  A guy down the street builds a similar looking house, so the carpenter sues the guy and then gets a court order to burn the new house to the ground.  It becomes illegal for anyone to build a similar house until 70 years after the death of the carpenter.

'Similar' or exactly the same?  Also, how unique is the design of the house to begin with?  How much time/effort/expense did the carpenter spend designing and planning his house which this neighbor simply copied?
And, most importantly, did the carpenter go through the proper legal channels to protect the design of his house through copyright?
 
The analogy falls apart a bit without more detail.
You can make a 'similar' work without infringing on copyright.

Just look at 'High Noon' and 'Outland,' for example.  Peter Hyams wanted to make a western, but given that it was 1981 no one was interested in financing one (Star Wars influence, once again).  So what did he do?  Basically gave us 'High Noon' in space.  He couldn't remake High Noon even if he had the money, because he didn't have the rights to it.  But change it up enough, make it your own, and you can do whatever you want.

Those popular old folk tales you're referencing are in public domain now, but there's little reason to believe that this would ever be the case if they were written more recently.  Copyright has regularly been extended over the past fifty years and there's no sign that copyright extensions will stop extending in the future.

I'm not arguing that copyright should extend indefinitely, but even if I were I fail to see what the real harm would be.  I've seen a lot of claims that it 'harms the public.'  But there haven't been any arguments made to demonstrate those claims.

If copyright extended forever (and it does seem to be moving in this direction), all Christian churches would be in copyright violation and would have to get rid of their bibles / depictions of a dude on a cross / use of words attributed to Jesus.  These ideas and teachings would be owned by an Arabic Jewish family.  The modern usage of Santa Claus would be banned unless authorized by the living descendants of St. Nicholas (or if you want to go with the modern version, then the Coke company would own Santa).  Think of the millions of other similar cases, where culture would be damaged by extending copyright extremely far.  Look at modern characters that should be public domain but aren't, and are likely never going to be . . . Superman, The Flash, Batman, Mickey Mouse, etc.

Up until recently the song 'Happy Birthday' was copyrighted and had to be cleared for use in films and TV.
Did that stop you from singing it at home? 

As far as religious texts, that's a whole other topic that I'm not sure we should delve in to.  Personally I don't see it as harmful if religion had a more difficult time spreading.  Regardless, copyright is a choice of the creator... not a mandate.  Anyone is free to put their work in the public domain at any time.  If a religion's true motivation is spreading their word (as opposed to protecting their intellectual property) then I'm assuming they would simply allow people to copy the text.  If they don't, well, I guess its up to the individual whether or not they want to be part of a religion that vehemently protects their copyrights through lawsuits (ie. Scientology).

As far as Santa Clause... you are taking something that is IN the public domain and then saying 'imagine if this didn't exist this way.'  Well, honestly, I'd rather live in a world where Coca Cola can't use Santa Clause to push their terrible product.  And I don't really want to live in a society where Superman can sell me car insurance or the Flash is used in Bounty paper towel ads while Batman sells ADT alarm systems and Wonder Woman is used to promote pornography sites.  I truly fail to see the benefit for the public in that regard.   If you want everything in the public domain, you have to take the good with the bad.

Sure, other artists would be able to also create their own Superman comics and films.  Or, they could instead create a new original super hero.  How many super hero's do you think we have today because writers were not able to simply use Superman and were instead forced to come up with something new?

I mentioned Calvin and Hobbes earlier in this thread.  One of the reasons that strip has found such a special place in our culture is because Bill Watterson refused to allow his characters to be used in any other way.  Their value was never diluted through inferior works.  He didn't want to see them animated, he didn't want to hear them speak, and he didn't want to see them turned into stuffed animals, carnival prizes or spokesman for children's products.  And who are we to tell him differently?  He created them out of nothing.

[ariapluscat]

If copyright extended forever (and it does seem to be moving in this direction), all Christian churches would be in copyright violation and would have to get rid of their bibles / depictions of a dude on a cross / use of words attributed to Jesus.  These ideas and teachings would be owned by an Arabic Jewish family.  The modern usage of Santa Claus would be banned unless authorized by the living descendants of St. Nicholas (or if you want to go with the modern version, then the Coke company would own Santa).  Think of the millions of other similar cases, where culture would be damaged by extending copyright extremely far.  Look at modern characters that should be public domain but aren't, and are likely never going to be . . . Superman, The Flash, Batman, Mickey Mouse, etc.

Why is this bad?
If a person develops a closed culture, we should respect the aspects of the culture that are closed. Like I honestly don't get the downside of this...
To give examples to match, I've been trying to follow the resistance to the Dakota pipeline: Take the current indigenous resistance to construct around or thru grave sites in Dakota or the irritation over the racialized depiction of the DC football team for non-indigenous profit or the economic theft of non-indigenous people selling war bonnets to people who haven't earned the right to wear them and don't belong to the closed culture. I mean there are aspects of Christian and Jewish faith that are closed as well, along practitioner and ethnic lines. While these aren't copyright issues, I don't see why someone dying means we get to traipse over their culture and intent.

Did too much ethical anthropological practice get ingrained in me?

[GuitarStv]

There's huge benefit for the arts and creativity within the "public domain" idea.  Copyright stops that benefit.  It does allow the creator to profit.

What is the 'huge benefit' for the arts and creativity?
I feel like I still haven't heard any argument to support that, just a claim.

However, at the same time we're ignoring the original content that has been created because of copyrights.  As I mentioned, Star Wars wouldn't have existed if Flash Gordon had been in the public domain (which it would have been in your argument, since it was created in the 30s).  There are countless 'original' works out there just like that (granted, probably none more famous than Star Wars).

It seems to me that the biggest benefit for the arts and creativity is to encourage artists to create original works.
And one way to encourage it is to demonstrate that we live in a society that will value and protect that work.

Meanwhile (granted, anecdotally), we live in a world where everyone I know seems to complain of a lack of original content while we're being inundated with remakes, reboots, sequels and the like.  I'm not certain that the world would be a better place artistically if everyone could make their own Star Wars film.

Are you going to tell me that there's no value to tunes like All Along the Watchtower?  It's one of the most defining songs of a generation . . . and Hendrix based his work on Dylan's less impactful original.  What about Aretha Franklin's "Respect"?  Joe Cocker's "With A Little Help from My Friends"?  The Clash's "I Fought The Law"?  There are many examples of covers that are radically better than the original . . . and then you get into the entire genres of music created by sampling stuff.

Speaking from a music point of view, all good ideas are stolen.  The entire genre of blues, the bulk of jazz (standards), an awful lot of rock, and big chunks of classical music are founded on the idea of taking someone else's idea, tweaking or modifying it a little bit and calling it your own.  Hip Hop, Rap, modern R&B, and a lot of modern music rely heavily on samples from older tunes (particularly 70s era funk)

There's no guarantee that Star Wars is any better than what Lucas originally wanted to do.  Maybe Flash Gordon would have been a more impactful work.  We don't know.  What you're proposing is that it's better to never know . . . to deny people the chance to do what they want and to create what they're inspired to create.

[GuitarStv]

Regardless, copyright is a choice of the creator...

How is the creator making choices about his copyright after his death?

[arebelspy]

But I think the central point is that content creators have to be able to profit from their work. So how do we accomplish this?

By allowing a reasonable length copyright (life of creator + 70 years past death is not, in any way, reasonable).

Say, 15 years.

And enforcing copyright infringement with reasonable fines and penalties (not, as we currently have it, fines in the millions and years of jail time--it's ridiculous that you can get more jail time downloading a copy of someone's work than you might actually physically raping them).

Say, 3-5x the cost of the work itself at the prevailing cost if the person could buy it (e.g. if it was available to them--if not, you clearly didn't want their sale), enforced more easily and with regularity.

I think plenty of people could profit plenty there, without the collateral damage we currently have.

[GuitarStv]

I mentioned Calvin and Hobbes earlier in this thread.  One of the reasons that strip has found such a special place in our culture is because Bill Watterson refused to allow his characters to be used in any other way.  Their value was never diluted through inferior works.  He didn't want to see them animated, he didn't want to hear them speak, and he didn't want to see them turned into stuffed animals, carnival prizes or spokesman for children's products.  And who are we to tell him differently?  He created them out of nothing.

Right.  That's why I'm not arguing for the abolition of copyright.  I do believe that it serves a valuable role.  I don't see the value in that role twenty years after the death of the creator though.  Can you explain that to me?

[GuitarStv]

As far as Santa Clause... you are taking something that is IN the public domain and then saying 'imagine if this didn't exist this way.'  Well, honestly, I'd rather live in a world where Coca Cola can't use Santa Clause to push their terrible product.

Coke invented Santa.  Before coke he wasn't a jolly fat guy in a red suit with a thick white beard and a twinkle in his eye.

And I don't really want to live in a society where Superman can sell me car insurance or the Flash is used in Bounty paper towel ads while Batman sells ADT alarm systems and Wonder Woman is used to promote pornography sites.  I truly fail to see the benefit for the public in that regard.   If you want everything in the public domain, you have to take the good with the bad.

Yep.  Freedom to use things means that they'll probably be used for things that I don't particularly like occasionally.  My preferences shouldn't be used to censor creativity (in whatever form it takes) though.

[Nick_Miller]

I mentioned Calvin and Hobbes earlier in this thread.  One of the reasons that strip has found such a special place in our culture is because Bill Watterson refused to allow his characters to be used in any other way.  Their value was never diluted through inferior works.  He didn't want to see them animated, he didn't want to hear them speak, and he didn't want to see them turned into stuffed animals, carnival prizes or spokesman for children's products.  And who are we to tell him differently?  He created them out of nothing.

That's an awesome point. Those books had a huge impact on my formative years. They were so thoughtful and profound, never watered down as you say with inferior products. I am 100% sure that television writers would have transformed a cartoon series into some sort of "Alvin and the Chipmunks" monstrosity where Calvin ran around constantly getting into trouble and being incredibly annoying. Calvin was actually a brilliant little kid in many ways.

[arebelspy]

I mentioned Calvin and Hobbes earlier in this thread.  One of the reasons that strip has found such a special place in our culture is because Bill Watterson refused to allow his characters to be used in any other way.  Their value was never diluted through inferior works.  He didn't want to see them animated, he didn't want to hear them speak, and he didn't want to see them turned into stuffed animals, carnival prizes or spokesman for children's products.  And who are we to tell him differently?  He created them out of nothing.

That's an awesome point. Those books had a huge impact on my formative years. They were so thoughtful and profound, never watered down as you say with inferior products. I am 100% sure that television writers would have transformed a cartoon series into some sort of "Alvin and the Chipmunks" monstrosity where Calvin ran around constantly getting into trouble and being incredibly annoying. Calvin was actually a brilliant little kid in many ways.

I disagree, for this reason: he would still have had copyright, and creative control in our shorter copyright scenario.  But the fact that C&H won't enter public domain until the next century, most likely, means many people won't ever experience him.

The fact of the matter is, C&H was GREAT.  In fact, I just finished rereading the whole collection today (the comic I posted was at the very end of the run, in the last few months, so I happened to see it, and see it as relevant to the beginning of this thread, and posted it).  But now, 20 years later?  If other artists were able to do stuff with C&H, I'd consider that a good thing.  Bill made an amazing creation.  And giving him decades to profit off of it absolutely should happen.   Heck, he FIRE'd in his mid-30s, IIRC, after writing it from 1986-1995.  9 years.  Then, of course, has gotten residuals for the last 21 years since he stopped doing it.  But is there a reason now that the public shouldn't be able to enjoy different artistic expressions related to it, or to Darkwing Duck/Tale Spin, or other awesome 90s stuff?  The creator's long since earned their profits.  The public domain is a good thing.

[MrDelane]

Are you going to tell me that there's no value to tunes like All Along the Watchtower?  It's one of the most defining songs of a generation . . . and Hendrix based his work on Dylan's less impactful original.  What about Aretha Franklin's "Respect"?  Joe Cocker's "With A Little Help from My Friends"?  The Clash's "I Fought The Law"?  There are many examples of covers that are radically better than the original . . . and then you get into the entire genres of music created by sampling stuff.

Of course there is value in all of those... and you just sited many examples that exist without the original work having to be in the public domain.

There's no guarantee that Star Wars is any better than what Lucas originally wanted to do.  Maybe Flash Gordon would have been a more impactful work.  We don't know.  What you're proposing is that it's better to never know . . . to deny people the chance to do what they want and to create what they're inspired to create.

You're right, there is no guarantee.

However, I'm not proposing that it is "better to never know," any more than you are proposing that it's better to never know what original works would not be created.

I will point out though that in my version we live in a world that includes BOTH Flash Gordon and Star Wars, and in yours there would only be Flash Gordon.

Right.  That's why I'm not arguing for the abolition of copyright.  I do believe that it serves a valuable role.  I don't see the value in that role twenty years after the death of the creator though.  Can you explain that to me?

We live in a society that values personal property.  When discussing what time is appropriate to take away someone's property I would think the burden of proof would be on those claiming it should be taken away.  I don't see how an argument needs to be made to justify ownership of intellectual property anymore than someone needs to justify why they hould be able to keep family heirlooms in their possession and the possession of their children.  Until such time that a valid argument  for taking away property is accepted, the default should be that ownership continues.

It's not an issue of 'value' for me, it's an issue or rights.  Someone created something unique, they should own it.  If they want to put it in the public domain, they can, if not - it's theirs to do with as they wish (whether I agree with it or not).

[Jack]

Perhaps I need to keep rereading some of these posts - but I don't quite see how a copyright is analogous to censorship and monopoly.... any more than counterfeiting laws are analogous to censorship and monopoly.

Counterfeiting laws are much more closely related to trademarks, which I have no problem with.

Inevitably someone responds to something in an article or video that was linked and then the reply is "well it's not my argument, I just thought he/she had some good points."

If you read stuff written by Richard Stallman or Cory Doctorow, I'll probably agree with 90%+ of it.

A better analogy with a carpenter is:  A carpenter builds a house and lives in it.  A guy down the street builds a similar looking house, so the carpenter sues the guy and then gets a court order to burn the new house to the ground.  It becomes illegal for anyone to build a similar house until 70 years after the death of the carpenter.

'Similar' or exactly the same?  Also, how unique is the design of the house to begin with?  How much time/effort/expense did the carpenter spend designing and planning his house which this neighbor simply copied?
And, most importantly, did the carpenter go through the proper legal channels to protect the design of his house through copyright?
 
The analogy falls apart a bit without more detail.
You can make a 'similar' work without infringing on copyright.

First of all, that won't stop you from getting sued for it anyway. Note that that lawsuit shouldn't have been plausible in the first place because both songs should have long been out of copyright by now. Also note that the plaintiff was not the musician who wrote the song allegedly infringed, but his estate -- i.e., some asshole who never created anything and was just going for a blatant money-grab.

Second, copyright does cover everything similar enough to count as a derivative work. Led Zeppelin won the lawsuit mentioned above, but just barely.

More to the point, how would the carpenter in your example have been harmed? You asked the wrong question: the question is not "why shouldn't he have ownership over the house he built?" but "why should he have ownership over not only the house he actually spent the effort to build, but also every other similar house in the world that other people spent the effort to build?"

In other words, you are (intentionally) trying to conflate the concept of copyright with the concept of actual property rights. The carpenter owns the house because he built it. He doesn't own other houses because other people built them. He also doesn't own the "idea" of the house or the "design" of the house because abstract concepts like that are not physical objects. Why should he?

By the way: you don't need to go through "proper channels" to copyright something. It's automatic. All registering your copyright does is let you claim treble damages in court instead of just actual damages.

Up until recently the song 'Happy Birthday' was copyrighted and had to be cleared for use in films and TV.
Did that stop you from singing it at home? 

So you're arguing that it's okay to break the law just because you won't get caught? And that bad laws are okay just because people break them anyway?

Singing "Happy Birthday" at home was just as much copyright infringement as singing it in a TV show would have been.

If copyright extended forever (and it does seem to be moving in this direction), all Christian churches would be in copyright violation and would have to get rid of their bibles / depictions of a dude on a cross / use of words attributed to Jesus.  These ideas and teachings would be owned by an Arabic Jewish family.

Why is this bad?
If a person develops a closed culture, we should respect the aspects of the culture that are closed. Like I honestly don't get the downside of this...

Consider the fact that Scientology uses copyright law to suppress criticism.

But I think the central point is that content creators have to be able to profit from their work.

No, they don't. People can't help but to create stuff, whether they profit from it or not.

[MrDelane]

This conversation is incredibly engrossing - unfortunately I should have left for work 10 minutes ago.
(just didn't want anyone to think I bailed on the discussion for some other reason)

:)

Thanks for the stimulating ideas.

[Jack]

I mentioned Calvin and Hobbes earlier in this thread.  One of the reasons that strip has found such a special place in our culture is because Bill Watterson refused to allow his characters to be used in any other way.  Their value was never diluted through inferior works.  He didn't want to see them animated, he didn't want to hear them speak, and he didn't want to see them turned into stuffed animals, carnival prizes or spokesman for children's products.  And who are we to tell him differently?  He created them out of nothing.

That's an awesome point. Those books had a huge impact on my formative years. They were so thoughtful and profound, never watered down as you say with inferior products. I am 100% sure that television writers would have transformed a cartoon series into some sort of "Alvin and the Chipmunks" monstrosity where Calvin ran around constantly getting into trouble and being incredibly annoying. Calvin was actually a brilliant little kid in many ways.

I disagree, for this reason: he would still have had copyright, and creative control in our shorter copyright scenario.  But the fact that C&H won't enter public domain until the next century, most likely, means many people won't ever experience him.

The fact of the matter is, C&H was GREAT.  In fact, I just finished rereading the whole collection today (the comic I posted was at the very end of the run, in the last few months, so I happened to see it, and see it as relevant to the beginning of this thread, and posted it).  But now, 20 years later?  If other artists were able to do stuff with C&H, I'd consider that a good thing.  Bill made an amazing creation.  And giving him decades to profit off of it absolutely should happen.   Heck, he FIRE'd in his mid-30s, IIRC, after writing it from 1986-1995.  9 years.  Then, of course, has gotten residuals for the last 21 years since he stopped doing it.  But is there a reason now that the public shouldn't be able to enjoy different artistic expressions related to it, or to Darkwing Duck/Tale Spin, or other awesome 90s stuff?  The creator's long since earned their profits.  The public domain is a good thing.

So, are we all in agreement that posting that comic in this thread was valuable and useful?

Well, too bad, because it's copyright infringement!

See, that's another harm of copyright: Bill Watterson could now send MMM a cease-and-desist and censor this entire thread if he wanted, just because "his" work was used in it without his permission.

[Jack]

Are you going to tell me that there's no value to tunes like All Along the Watchtower?  It's one of the most defining songs of a generation . . . and Hendrix based his work on Dylan's less impactful original.  What about Aretha Franklin's "Respect"?  Joe Cocker's "With A Little Help from My Friends"?  The Clash's "I Fought The Law"?  There are many examples of covers that are radically better than the original . . . and then you get into the entire genres of music created by sampling stuff.

Of course there is value in all of those... and you just sited many examples that exist without the original work having to be in the public domain.

No. Those are many examples that exist because the first artist gave permission for the second artist to do the cover. We'll never know how many great covered songs could have existed, but don't, because the covering artist couldn't get permission.

[GuitarStv]

There's no guarantee that Star Wars is any better than what Lucas originally wanted to do.  Maybe Flash Gordon would have been a more impactful work.  We don't know.  What you're proposing is that it's better to never know . . . to deny people the chance to do what they want and to create what they're inspired to create.

You're right, there is no guarantee.

However, I'm not proposing that it is "better to never know," any more than you are proposing that it's better to never know what original works would not be created.

I will point out though that in my version we live in a world that includes BOTH Flash Gordon and Star Wars, and in yours there would only be Flash Gordon.

Nope.

In my world both could have been created as well.  Maybe Flash Gordon didn't pan out for Lucas and he made Star Wars.  Maybe it was a hit success and he was inspired to try Star Wars.  In my version he has creative choice.  In yours, you take that away.

Right.  That's why I'm not arguing for the abolition of copyright.  I do believe that it serves a valuable role.  I don't see the value in that role twenty years after the death of the creator though.  Can you explain that to me?

We live in a society that values personal property.  When discussing what time is appropriate to take away someone's property I would think the burden of proof would be on those claiming it should be taken away.  I don't see how an argument needs to be made to justify ownership of intellectual property anymore than someone needs to justify why they hould be able to keep family heirlooms in their possession and the possession of their children.  Until such time that a valid argument  for taking away property is accepted, the default should be that ownership continues.

It's not an issue of 'value' for me, it's an issue or rights.  Someone created something unique, they should own it.  If they want to put it in the public domain, they can, if not - it's theirs to do with as they wish (whether I agree with it or not).

You aren't taking away personal property when a copyright expires.  We're talking about intellectual property, which is wildly different.  With personal property when someone takes something, you no longer have it.  With intellectual property when someone 'takes' something they are really creating something without depriving you of anything.

[Jack]

Right.  That's why I'm not arguing for the abolition of copyright.  I do believe that it serves a valuable role.  I don't see the value in that role twenty years after the death of the creator though.  Can you explain that to me?

We live in a society that values personal property.  When discussing what time is appropriate to take away someone's property I would think the burden of proof would be on those claiming it should be taken away.  I don't see how an argument needs to be made to justify ownership of intellectual property anymore than someone needs to justify why they hould be able to keep family heirlooms in their possession and the possession of their children.  Until such time that a valid argument  for taking away property is accepted, the default should be that ownership continues.

It's not an issue of 'value' for me, it's an issue or rights.  Someone created something unique, they should own it.  If they want to put it in the public domain, they can, if not - it's theirs to do with as they wish (whether I agree with it or not).

You aren't taking away personal property when a copyright expires.  We're talking about intellectual property a government-granted monopoly, which is wildly different.  With personal property when someone takes something, you no longer have it.  With intellectual property a government-granted monopoly when someone 'takes' something they are really creating something without depriving you of anything.

If you accept the disingenuous and misleading term "intellectual property," you've already ceded a large part of the argument. Allowing copyright to be called that is one of the ways it becomes so easy for the copyright cartel to confuse people into comparing it with actual property, as MrDelane has done.

Copyright is not and never has been anything even slightly like a property right. That is the very first thing that must be crystal-clear to everyone in order to have an intelligent discussion about it.

[GuitarStv]

Are you going to tell me that there's no value to tunes like All Along the Watchtower?  It's one of the most defining songs of a generation . . . and Hendrix based his work on Dylan's less impactful original.  What about Aretha Franklin's "Respect"?  Joe Cocker's "With A Little Help from My Friends"?  The Clash's "I Fought The Law"?  There are many examples of covers that are radically better than the original . . . and then you get into the entire genres of music created by sampling stuff.

Of course there is value in all of those... and you just sited many examples that exist without the original work having to be in the public domain.

No. Those are many examples that exist because the first artist gave permission for the second artist to do the cover. We'll never know how many great covered songs could have existed, but don't, because the covering artist couldn't get permission.

Hendrix didn't ask for permission from Dylan, he just (obsessively) recorded (and re-recorded) the tune after hearing Dylan's version.  It's nice that Dylan was cool about it, but he could have said no after the fact and sued Hendrix to prevent the song from being widely released.


Another fun point about music . . . you get into music to write your own songs.  But then you need to gig to get paid and to gain experience to become a decent live act.  But nobody will hire you as an unknown band playing originals.  Your early jobs will be playing covers, with a few of your originals sprinkled in (if you're lucky).  You will not be able to get your foot in the door of the music industry without spending several years copyright infringing.  :P

[Nick_Miller]

But I think the central point is that content creators have to be able to profit from their work.

No, they don't. People can't help but to create stuff, whether they profit from it or not.
[/quote]

Uh...what?

I would NOT have spent over 2 years of my life writing a novel just for shits and giggles. My work would not exist without the promise of financial gain. Your blanket statement, as applied to my situation, is false.

[arebelspy]

But I think the central point is that content creators have to be able to profit from their work.

No, they don't. People can't help but to create stuff, whether they profit from it or not.

Uh...what?

I would NOT have spent over 2 years of my life writing a novel just for shits and giggles. My work would not exist without the promise of financial gain. Your blanket statement, as applied to my situation, is false.

It depends.  Sometimes artists are in it for the money, sometimes for the love of it. Regardless of their motives, I think they should be able to profit from their work for a reasonable period of time.

I mean, look at it this way.  Our patent system is for 20 years from filing.  Do you think that should be life of creator + 70 years?

If not, why not?  Cross apply that to copyright.

My opinion: because allowing a period for them to profit incentives creation while keeping it reasonable allows others to then improve upon it, benefiting all of society.  To thank the original creator for this contribution, we grant them an exclusive license to profit off of it for a period of time.  When we make that period essentially indefinite, we're not allowing the public benefit part to happen.

(Our patent system has many other problems, as seen with patent trolls, but length is not the issue, as it is with copyright.)

Explain to me why someone should still profit, decades later, from something they created, and no one else should be allowed to share it (such as my posting the C&H comic here), make derivative works, etc.  I don't see how 15-20 years is unreasonable in any way towards someone wanting to profit on their work.

[Jack]

But I think the central point is that content creators have to be able to profit from their work.

No, they don't. People can't help but to create stuff, whether they profit from it or not.

Uh...what?

I would NOT have spent over 2 years of my life writing a novel just for shits and giggles. My work would not exist without the promise of financial gain. Your blanket statement, as applied to my situation, is false.

Then we'd simply be reading somebody else's novel instead. The world would still have plenty of stories, and nobody would ever know (or care) that you refused to share yours with it. That's your problem, not the world's.

If you make it so that artists profit off their work, you get people creating art for profit. If you don't, you get people creating art for art's sake. Either way, you still get art.

[GuitarStv]

But I think the central point is that content creators have to be able to profit from their work.

No, they don't. People can't help but to create stuff, whether they profit from it or not.

Uh...what?

I would NOT have spent over 2 years of my life writing a novel just for shits and giggles. My work would not exist without the promise of financial gain. Your blanket statement, as applied to my situation, is false.

Then we'd simply be reading somebody else's novel instead. The world would still have plenty of stories, and nobody would ever know (or care) that you refused to share yours with it. That's your problem, not the world's.

If you make it so that artists profit off their work, you get people creating art for profit. If you don't, you get people creating art for art's sake. Either way, you still get art.

I'd actually argue that this view is shortsighted.  There is value to art created by professional artists . . . people who have spent years and countless hours honing/perfecting their craft.  Fewer people will be able to do this, and fewer people will risk doing this if there is no monetary reward.  As a result, the quality of overall art available available to the public will suffer.

[arebelspy]

But I think the central point is that content creators have to be able to profit from their work.

No, they don't. People can't help but to create stuff, whether they profit from it or not.

Uh...what?

I would NOT have spent over 2 years of my life writing a novel just for shits and giggles. My work would not exist without the promise of financial gain. Your blanket statement, as applied to my situation, is false.

Then we'd simply be reading somebody else's novel instead. The world would still have plenty of stories, and nobody would ever know (or care) that you refused to share yours with it. That's your problem, not the world's.

If you make it so that artists profit off their work, you get people creating art for profit. If you don't, you get people creating art for art's sake. Either way, you still get art.

This is a good point.  I'd have a hard time arguing art made for profit is better than the other way around.

Still, given the choice, I'd rather have both.  So I do support a reasonable length copyright, not abolishing it completely.

[ariapluscat]

Consider the fact that Scientology uses copyright law to suppress criticism.

But I think the central point is that content creators have to be able to profit from their work.

No, they don't. People can't help but to create stuff, whether they profit from it or not.

Since I can't actually see the video, I can only go by my understanding which is that they leaked a video made by scientology and used in the initiation of members. It was never shown to non-members.

Removing this material fine w me. If Gawker wanted to criticize them Gawker could've done so w a long term undercover journalist who gained full entry to the closed culture (or talking to an exited member) or by editing the video in a way that didn't disclose elements that were protected to members-only. Or by proving that the culture isn't actually closed. But they didn't do any of those options.

It also seems like Gawker felt justified in fair use since they're (middling level) journalists. If they want the protection of fair use, they have to follow the ethics. Further they can't attempt to profit off of it, to be acceptable in an anthropological or academic ethical code. A larger meta-criticism or a general discussion of the style of discourse that Scientology promotes would've better fit ethical codes for journalism; they have a responsibility too for good relations as much as revealing information.

Ethical concerns don't just apply to cultures I like or belong to; they also apply to those I dislike.
Anyway, I'm pointing out that there are ethical concerns to the 'i can grab everything i want' approach you seem to take.

[arebelspy]

Okay, you didn't like the Scientology example (IIRC they tried to shut down all discussion of it, not just postings of copyrighted material, claiming even discussing the works was violating their copyright).

How about any of these examples:
Using Copyright To Suppress Political Speech
Collapsed UK Bank Attempts to Censor Wikileaks
Dentist uses copyright to silence patients
Universal Pictures Wants To Remove Localhost and IMDB Pages From Google Results

Just from a quick ten second search of ./

Let me give you another example: MLK Jr.'s I Have a Dream speech.  It's copyrighted.  Still.  And will be, for decades.

That is *.  That should be in the public domain, for people to play, if they decide.  Perpetual copyright to keep things from the public domain is stealing from the public, from our national heritage, and preventing progress.  I don't see why his heirs should profit from that, decades later.  For a few decades, maybe.  For 70+ years?  Come on.  That's harmful to society, not helpful to it.

[Northwestie]

Interestingly - the EU is tightening their copyright laws:  http://www.marketplace.org/2016/09/14/world/european-union-seeks-tighten-copyright-laws

[Nick_Miller]

But I think the central point is that content creators have to be able to profit from their work.

No, they don't. People can't help but to create stuff, whether they profit from it or not.

Uh...what?

I would NOT have spent over 2 years of my life writing a novel just for shits and giggles. My work would not exist without the promise of financial gain. Your blanket statement, as applied to my situation, is false.

Then we'd simply be reading somebody else's novel instead. The world would still have plenty of stories, and nobody would ever know (or care) that you refused to share yours with it. That's your problem, not the world's.

If you make it so that artists profit off their work, you get people creating art for profit. If you don't, you get people creating art for art's sake. Either way, you still get art.

I'd actually argue that this view is shortsighted.  There is value to art created by professional artists . . . people who have spent years and countless hours honing/perfecting their craft.  Fewer people will be able to do this, and fewer people will risk doing this if there is no monetary reward.  As a result, the quality of overall art available available to the public will suffer.

Extremely short sighted. Becoming a master artist or master novelist, much like becoming a "master" at anything, takes time time time time time time and MORE time. For every "overnight sensation," there are 1,000 others who have slaved over an easel or a laptop or whatever practicing, practicing, creating images or stories that barely make an economic trickle, but that pay just enough for the journey to continue. And this journey may take years, or more likely decades. And even people who do this on a part-time basis, while working the dreaded "day job," experience the same bumps in the road...they just enjoy a constant income that alleviates much of the economic pressure, but at the same time, their road to art mastery may take MUCH longer.

Either way, there's a real economic value to their work, which thankfully most people respect and acknowledge.

[GuitarStv]

But I think the central point is that content creators have to be able to profit from their work.

No, they don't. People can't help but to create stuff, whether they profit from it or not.

Uh...what?

I would NOT have spent over 2 years of my life writing a novel just for shits and giggles. My work would not exist without the promise of financial gain. Your blanket statement, as applied to my situation, is false.

Then we'd simply be reading somebody else's novel instead. The world would still have plenty of stories, and nobody would ever know (or care) that you refused to share yours with it. That's your problem, not the world's.

If you make it so that artists profit off their work, you get people creating art for profit. If you don't, you get people creating art for art's sake. Either way, you still get art.

I'd actually argue that this view is shortsighted.  There is value to art created by professional artists . . . people who have spent years and countless hours honing/perfecting their craft.  Fewer people will be able to do this, and fewer people will risk doing this if there is no monetary reward.  As a result, the quality of overall art available available to the public will suffer.

Extremely short sighted. Becoming a master artist or master novelist, much like becoming a "master" at anything, takes time time time time time time and MORE time. For every "overnight sensation," there are 1,000 others who have slaved over an easel or a laptop or whatever practicing, practicing, creating images or stories that barely make an economic trickle, but that pay just enough for the journey to continue. And this journey may take years, or more likely decades. And even people who do this on a part-time basis, while working the dreaded "day job," experience the same bumps in the road...they just enjoy a constant income that alleviates much of the economic pressure, but at the same time, their road to art mastery may take MUCH longer.

Either way, there's a real economic value to their work, which thankfully most people respect and acknowledge.

Yep.  Although, I still have yet to hear anyone give me a good reason why extending copyright beyond the life of an artist could make any sense at all.  If the artist is dead he is statistically less likely to create further works (notwithstanding 2Pac's five posthumous albums  :P  ).

[Jack]

I'd actually argue that this view is shortsighted.  There is value to art created by professional artists . . . people who have spent years and countless hours honing/perfecting their craft.  Fewer people will be able to do this, and fewer people will risk doing this if there is no monetary reward.  As a result, the quality of overall art available available to the public will suffer.

Sure, that's always been the common justification for copyright... but is there any proof that it's actually true?

We as a society assume it's true, but we actually don't know. And there have been lots of things that we thought we knew, until we actually studied them and realized we were wrong.

[arebelspy]

Yep.  Although, I still have yet to hear anyone give me a good reason why extending copyright beyond the life of an artist could make any sense at all.  If the artist is dead he is statistically less likely to create further works (notwithstanding 2Pac's five posthumous albums  :P  ).

I'm okay with their work providing for their offspring for a reasonable amount of time.  Like, say, a carpenter who had built a bunch of furniture, with 3/4th of it unsold, to let the remaining stuff be given to the heirs to be sold, if someone has 10 years of their 15 year copyright left, and they die, the heirs getting the benefit of those last 10 years is good with me.

Extensions after death (and 70 years after death!), not so much.

[Jack]

I'm okay with their work providing for their offspring for a reasonable amount of time.  Like, say, a carpenter who had built a bunch of furniture, with 3/4th of it unsold, to let the remaining stuff be given to the heirs to be sold, if someone has 10 years of their 15 year copyright left, and they die, the heirs getting the benefit of those last 10 years is good with me.

Extensions after death (and 70 years after death!), not so much.

No, the heirs have the right to sell the furniture after the carpenter's death for the same reason the carpenter had ownership rights in the first place: because furniture is actual property.

Copyright (in this analogy at least) is a lot more like, say, Social Security: it is a "benefit" granted by the government, not a property right. Upon the creator's death, copyright should go *poof* just like SS would.

(Yes, I know about SS survivor benefits, as somebody is surely about to point out. But the point is that those survivor benefits exist as a matter of policy because we decided they were a good thing, and are subject to debate -- similar to copyright.)

The important distinction is that copyright is very different from property rights, which are inalienable Natural Rights.

[SwordGuy]

You aren't taking away personal property when a copyright expires.  We're talking about intellectual property, which is wildly different.  With personal property when someone takes something, you no longer have it.  With intellectual property when someone 'takes' something they are really creating something without depriving you of anything.

Not true. 

If I write a book, then you copy and sell it, I don't make money on it.  You do.

Why the hell, if copyright holders aren't economically harmed, would they fight so damned hard to protect and extend copyright terms?

If you write something using my work as a basis, you can ruin the experience (and thus value) of my own work. 

See Gene Kelly's Singing in the Rain dance/song number before and after A Clockwork Orange.    It won't be the same and could cause real harm to the owner of the original work.

[ariapluscat]

Okay, you didn't like the Scientology example (IIRC they tried to shut down all discussion of it, not just postings of copyrighted material, claiming even discussing the works was violating their copyright).

How about any of these examples:
Using Copyright To Suppress Political Speech
Collapsed UK Bank Attempts to Censor Wikileaks
Dentist uses copyright to silence patients
Universal Pictures Wants To Remove Localhost and IMDB Pages From Google Results

Just from a quick ten second search of ./

Let me give you another example: MLK Jr.'s I Have a Dream speech.  It's copyrighted.  Still.  And will be, for decades.

That is *.  That should be in the public domain, for people to play, if they decide.  Perpetual copyright to keep things from the public domain is stealing from the public, from our national heritage, and preventing progress.  I don't see why his heirs should profit from that, decades later.  For a few decades, maybe.  For 70+ years?  Come on.  That's harmful to society, not helpful to it.

These examples aren't relevant. I don't really understand the citation of internet forums, but if I understand the gist of the first two:
The first is illegible. It claims that two candidates used copy right law but I can't see the articles referred to in the track back.
The second isn't about a culture. It's about illegally obtained documents; maybe relevant to 'insider culture' if the person who leaked them was an insider at the company and had access to them in their duties. i personally don't buy corporate culture as a closed culture bc they treat ppl as replaceable cogs and a lot of dispute is ongoing about the extent of 'corporate culture' in cultural anthropology.
The third is about people willingly signing away their rights.
The fourth, again, is not about a culture like the second and third.
Please, consider the respect that should be extended to actual cultures; it's disengenous to conflate black americans - or the specifics of the 60s protest culture - with a single corporate bank in 2015.

And of course a performance of something doesn't make it free for anyone to use, especially without citation and for profit. Much less put it outside of ethical concerns! The entitlement to black labor is astounding. Esp in the context of the closed culture of SNCC, black churches, and the civil rights movement it makes a lot of sense to me that MLK's family wanted to keep the original text as their own rather than turn it over to a corporate entity or an anti-black public. It's quite easy to access this speech for educational or research purposes. You can also invest heavily in research entities that are accessible to the public to allow public access.

Again, a performance of a religious ceremony or political speech on the national lawn or at the Lincoln memorial during an event like a smithsonian folklife festival or a march on DC doesn't mean that outsiders can take the labor, physical and intellectual, as their own indefinitely. Nor can you decontextualize it from the culture that it belonged to. The whole point of respecting these aspects of closed cultures is that the respect allows the culture to be comfortable sharing what they are comfortable sharing, rather than being completely isolated. Plus, you know human rights don't need to have a benefit to be respected.

So much of the professional art world is about respecting the intent of the culture and individuals who produced a work. there are many pieces that i wish were recorded or re-performed so i could see them, but the artist has explicitly banned this due to the integrity of the work. no (serious) historical group or museum is going to deny them that. and in works where the artists' intent is unknown it's the ethical responsibility of the professional art world to try to approach an understanding of their intent or their cultures' approach toward the art.

again, the foam on this thread is wild