New Bill to Limit Copyright to 56 Years, Would be Retroactive

[billd91]

But MI-6 is under copyright! Oh.... wait....

If it was, that would be an interesting way for the British government to suppress anyone writing about it and its activities.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I would argue that they made a living as directors. They just had to write their own material. And what happened then doesn't bear a lot of resemblance to today.

You'd be wrong. Objectively.

Further, it absolutely unravels your attempt to argue that without copyright no one has any reason to create anything new. It's an entirely absurd argument with no basis in reality.

 

[Ryujin]

You'd be wrong. Objectively.

Further, it absolutely unravels your attempt to argue that without copyright no one has any reason to create anything new. It's an entirely absurd argument with no basis in reality.

That's not my argument. At all. My statement is that without the ability to make a living from their creative work, there is little incentive to be creative. You may consider that a semantic difference but create situation in which copyright isn't crucial to making at least a subsistence level income, in today's world, and you might have something.

 

[Cadence]

I wonder how many peoples' creative endeavors are partially motivated by the dream of hitting the big time some day.

 

[Lanefan]

If it has to be James Bond and not some other highly skilled spy working for MI6, sure. But it's not like there aren't plenty of other spy characters out there. Gadget-using spy is a big enough pool for a lot of people to play in.

Well, yes; there's James Bond, and then there's various knockoffs.

And if those knockoffs hew too close to the original - as in close enough that pretty much only the names are changed - you're into the copyright muck again.

 

[Ryujin]

Well, yes; there's James Bond, and then there's various knockoffs.

And if those knockoffs hew too close to the original - as in close enough that pretty much only the names are changed - you're into the copyright muck again.

"Our Man Flint"
"Danger Man"
"The Saint"
"Matt Helm"
"Austin Powers"
"The Avengers"
"Maxwell Smart"

... to name a few.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's not my argument. At all. My statement is that without the ability to make a living from their creative work, there is little incentive to be creative. You may consider that a semantic difference but create situation in which copyright isn't crucial to making at least a subsistence level income, in today's world, and you might have something.

But that is provably false. You stated upthread that “no one would do it” if you couldn’t really make a career of it, but that is entirely absurd in every facet. Not only that, but only one person has advocated no copyright protection at all, and even @Bohandas has been willing to entertain compromise on that position.

But even eliminated IP protection of all kinds wouldn’t stop artists working as artists, nor would it stop hobby creation. We know that because history has proven it for well over ten thousand years.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I wonder how many peoples' creative endeavors are partially motivated by the dream of hitting the big time some day.

While I think most of us daydream about it, I’d wager that less than 10% make art on a regular basis, challenge themselves to get better, etc, with any delusion that they are likely to make it big.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Also, has everyone forgotten that patronage has seen a renaissance due to digital payment and information sharing?

I’ve personally only commissioned several hundred dollars of art, but most of the artists I commissioned make art for a living on the basis primarily of commissions!

Besides all of which, copyright is a bandaid on the (professional content creation context of the) larger problem of our societies failure to adjust to the exponentially increased productivity by decreasing the amount of work an individual needs to perform in order to live comfortably.

 

[Ryujin]

But that is provably false. You stated upthread that “no one would do it” if you couldn’t really make a career of it, but that is entirely absurd in every facet. Not only that, but only one person has advocated no copyright protection at all, and even @Bohandas has been willing to entertain compromise on that position.

But even eliminated IP protection of all kinds wouldn’t stop artists working as artists, nor would it stop hobby creation. We know that because history has proven it for well over ten thousand years.

And I simply don't agree with that premise or that it's "provably false", and I'll leave it at that.