to list as well.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com Date: 14 Feb 2008 19:43 Subject: Re: paying artists (was: Re: Freedom or Copyright? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation) (FSF) To: Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com
On 14/02/2008, Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
I really don't buy into the "they don't have a right to earn a living unless they can make money on it on their own" arguments that some people have implied. It is possible to view copyright as a kind of monopoly, but in a true economic sense, it's nothing of the sort because equivalent goods and services are available from a range of different places (in the case of music, perhaps not as many as you'd want, but still not a true monopoly).
This appears to be attempting to argue semantics. The whole point of copyright is to provide an entirely artificial monopoly. The social question then becomes what that is for.
Your posts to this list have been largely equivocation; you're now trying to retrospectively redefine your terms.
- d.
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 19:43 +0000, David Gerard wrote:
On 14/02/2008, Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
I really don't buy into the "they don't have a right to earn a living unless they can make money on it on their own" arguments that some people have implied. It is possible to view copyright as a kind of monopoly, but in a true economic sense, it's nothing of the sort because equivalent goods and services are available from a range of different places (in the case of music, perhaps not as many as you'd want, but still not a true monopoly).
This appears to be attempting to argue semantics. The whole point of copyright is to provide an entirely artificial monopoly. The social question then becomes what that is for.
I don't think that's semantics. A monopoly is a position in a good or service where what what you provide has limited or no feasible substitute, allowing you to control the price. That's not what copyright really provides: while no-one else can supply exactly what you're supply, in many or most cases it's entirely substitutable, so you're still competing against other vendors. In the case of someone collecting a specific artist or similar, perhaps you could use the word monopoly in the traditional sense, but that's not how most buyers operate.
Your posts to this list have been largely equivocation; you're now trying to retrospectively redefine your terms.
I would suggest that if that's what you think I'm doing, you haven't fully understood the points I'm trying to make, and I apologise for not being clear enough.
The point I'm trying to get across is that it's very easy to make sweeping statements against copyright, way beyond RMS' essay (he only mentioned non-commercial copying, which I think is admirable if difficult to define), without considering what could be substantial economic damage. Already I've seen people effectively write off entire genres of music and the film industry, and when I point out that it could result in less cultural output I really don't think the response "well, it's not naturally sustainable then" is any kind of adequate answer. You can argue copyright is artificial, and of course it is, but then you can say that about any contractual arrangement or other trade.
Cheers.
Alex.