Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Coreyartus" data-source="post: 7689930" data-attributes="member: 5399">Your entire argument is based on the fact that the consumer's desires are more important than the creator's.  Bottom line, it's not their stuff to share.  The desires and "actions of the average person" are irrelevant--it's not their stuff.  Laws are already being debated and contemplated that will facilitate the saving of a lot of work that's disintegrating.  And finding the money to preserve films or other visual art does not automatically imply they have to be shown to do so.  That just means the most obvious approach to saving them isn't convenient.  There are lots of art works being preserved that have never been seen by the public.  Doesn't stop the fundraising.And that has nothing to do with stealing someone else's work and using it because one's too lazy to do the work or pay for it themselves.  Why shouldn't I care that someone else wants to adapt my stuff and show it to their Internet friends?  As an artist, I should starve or let you steal work I spent a lot of time developing so others can have the luxury of playing with it?  And they're going to determine the window of time I have for owning my own work before they get to dive in and use it for their own?  They can use my stuff when I and my family or my corporation are finished with it, thank-you very much, and we will determine when that is--not them.  Their desires to use my work or my IP without my permission or without paying me for it matter very little to me.Those are the people whom I'd call narcissistic.  Regarding dressmakers and furniture makers--their work can't be copyrighted because it was determined years and years ago that the ridiculous end result would ludicrously require the paying of a fee for using specific types of collars or buttons or heels on shoes, or table legs or shelving mechanisms.  Those kinds of items (including food, jokes, recipes, and instructions) were determined many many years ago to be too utilitarian to copyright.  Believe me, I know--I'm a theatrical costume designer.  But even my field is not immune to copyright infringement (as seen <a href="http://www.hesherman.com/2015/12/09/black-magic-crosses-directing-design-line-in-connecticut/" target="_blank">here</a>).Regarding Shakespeare, please note the vast vast majority of original works throughout world history that have also been successful despite not being directly derivative of others.  In today's world, there's no excuse for not crediting the original sources of clearly derivative work, or asking permission (the internet makes that way too easy and the only barriers are time, money, diligence and the desire to do so if the work matters enough).  That's simply not how it was done in Shakespeare's day and age--it wasn't even possible.  That has nothing to do with the validity or sanctioning of his process as a contemporary practice to emulate when in today's world following modern copyright laws shouldn't be that hard:  just don't use others' work.I understand the desire to save works through public access.  That's not enough of a justification to summarily ignore copyright of everyone's works.  It's not the same thing, especially with contemporary technologies.  We may be lucky to have early episodes of Dr. Who thanks to illegal methods, but it doesn't follow that therefore everyone should feel free to copy and use whatever they come across to ostensibly "save it".</blockquote>

Verification