Upvote Upvoted 1
5 responses
1) You got yourself into the art troll. I'll leave that.

2) I don't think you can prove that the movie companies are suffering because people are watching creative commons movies and youtubes. If you listen to the youtube people most of what is watched is stuff from TV and Movies.

3) I just want to tell you that programmers create art within a craft. Maybe most people can't find it accessible, some of it is accessible. A program can be art. I wouldn't call all programs art, but some of us mean it.

Check this out, it is pretty well protest art:

http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/haiku.html

More programmer protest art: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/

This art and expression I just linked you, will be illegal under C-32. It will be illegal for me to send you this file due to TPM provisions in C-32:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/bowley-efdtt-dvdlogo.html

Do you see that? They are making art, they making fun of the DVD companies. But that ART will be banned. Consider that.

That's a violation of 2(b) of our Charter:
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

— Anonymous
Hey Anon...

I don't think that movie companies are suffering at all. I just think the people that do the traditional PR/marketing jobs have their tasks made more difficult by the lack of a skill set. They whine to their bosses. Their bosses whine to politicians and pay them out.

Also, I think any creative process CAN be artistic. Be it programming blogging, podcasting, painting, composing, it's the process that should have the value to the creator. While I appreciate that the resulting content may have monetary value, the pursuit of that value as a prime focus renders the "artistic" process null and void. That's also not to say it's worthless or did not require skill which may be unique and rare.

Thanks for listening and contributing!

— anthony marco
Your rant made me think of an entirely different rant. To me the suggestion that Copyright inspires people to create isn't about whether something is an art vs a craft. That's interesting to other people, but not to me -- sorry.

What I find interesting is the suggestion that copyright is equal to money, and that more copyright would mean more money. There is no proof of this, and in fact there is quite a bit of evidence that the opposite is true. I'm a firm believer that copyright is to creativity like water is to humans: too little and you may dehydrate and die, but too much and you will drown and die. I think Bill C-32 is all about turning a massive hose on someone who was already drowning. Just because some confused/stressed/fearful drowning people are screaming for more water, doesn't make it right to turn on the hose.

And, what is so wrong with patronage anyway? I really have a hard time telling the difference between that and what happens with the major labels/studios/etc where only a chosen few (chosen by the proprietors, not by the audiences) get to choose who gets paid or not.

On the other hand, I believe we as a society should help to fund people who want to spend time being artists. We all have to put food on the table, and with some Arts funding it means that artists can be artists, rather than not having the time to be artists. I find it extremely frustrating when some people think that "more copyright" is a substitute for arts funding -- it is like taking money out of the left and right pockets of average creators at the same time given both more copyright and less arts funding means less money for independent creators (IE: those not part of the modern corporate patronage system).

To Anonymous,

There is no way to 'prove' most of what is said these days. There is no proof that non-commercial sharing of copyrighted entertainment causes lost sales. The statistics used to discuss losses do not differentiate between infringement, misapplied technical measures, competition with other media, or other unrelated market forces. Andrew's suggestion that it is more competition than infringement is just as valid (I would say more, from my own personal experience) than those who say the majority is from infringement.

Personally, when I don't buy copyrighted works that I would otherwise be interested in it is (1) lawful competition, (2) misapplied TPMs, (3) other market forces (including regional restrictions), and possibly never (I can't think of an example) infringement.

— russellmcormond
Indeed @russellmcormond I can't say I subscribe to the notion that copyright is equal to money. I do realize, however, that in defending an esoteric position of Art v. Craft, that may have come across. I pretty much just expect that the mouthpieces that rail about copyright being last bastion of creativity are very often NOT the content creators, but rather someone who wishes to make money from their content.

In fact, Bill C-32's positions on Digital Locks makes it, intrinsically, devastating to "lawful" creative processes. If creativity is a subjective and evolutionary amalgam of a person's lifetime of creating and consuming content, there seem to be many places I can be financially and criminally liable for exploring creative processes which, for centuries, have not only been welcome, but expected.

Any rock'n'roll musician has, at some point, borrowed from blues, who borrowed from gospel, who borrowed from pastorals, who borrowed from chant, who borrowed from secular and non-secular tribal utterances. I doubt the Druidic Celts or Kalahari Bushmen will be filing an infringement lawsuit any time soon.

In addition, I have no problem with patronage either. I merely maintain that if patronage directs the creative process, the result will not be art, though if the patron merely allows for the process to occur, the result most certainly could be. My only concern is that some maintain that "funding" must occur for creativity to happen. I have no doubt that I may need financial backing to create a mile-long installation in a park somewhere, but, as per my original argument, which I know is of less concern to you, the process to conceive of installation is where the "art" has happened irrespective of product.

That said, and I know, considering my years as a "struggling" musician this shocks many people, I do not think the government should be directly funding "artists". Instead of funding people, governments should provide resources. Establish an arts center in every community where people can freely attend to establish their creativity. Enhance arts programs in schools instead of cutting them.

Part of my larger issue with funding artists lies in my lack of faith in the gatekeepers of the funds. In fact, grant applications by their own parameters impinge upon the artistic process they are supposed to be funding. As anyone knows who has filled in an arts grant application knows there is a way to write them to appeal to the board's sensibilities. I would much rather we fund a society of artistic people who work in all fields than appease our moral compasses by choosing a handful of people who a board feels represents our country.

I would much rather foster the Arts and allow the artists to organically evolve from such sustenance... sounds like an ant farm.

Thanks for commenting Russell!

— anthony marco
1 visitor upvoted this post.