Q: "In recent years, there's been a lot of people clamoring to reform and restrict intellectual-property rights. It started out with just a few people, but now there are a bunch of advocates saying, 'We've got to look at patents, we've got to look at copyrights.' What's driving this, and do you think intellectual-property laws need to be reformed?
A: "No, I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist. [...]"
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/01/05/bill_gates_free_cult.html
He's not a very bright one, our Billy-Boy. As I see it, artists of all mediums be that paint, music or otherwise get the most incentive from people seeing/hearing and appriciating their work. If people are just seeing it to open their wallets, then thats pretty dumb. People that "steal" my art but appriciate get more respect than someone who paid and either didn't understand it, or was just ignorant because it wasn't what they wanted.
And how is it that opensource software evolves faster that closed source, eh Mr Gates? Money should never be the main or only incentive for artists, it should take second place to people appriciating their work. We do think those incentives of money should exist somewhere (we all have bills to pay, food to eat), but we think that money shouldn't be #1. The rest of the world is powered by nothing but money, so we think somethings can change.
Bill Gates is certainly a dildo, but one should not just assume that artists only care about how many people see/hear their art. If that were so, why do so many truly great and artistic bands/artists/etc sell their art instead of just giving it away for free? Knowing people are enjoying your work is great, but you've got to put the bread in the basket somehow.
Be careful not to fall for any of the classic yet lame and tired excuses for piracy.
>>3 is bang-on, IMHO.
I have mixed feelings about open source. It has numerous advantages that cannot be denied, and I both use and sometimes contribute to it myself. But money doesn't appear ex nihilo either. A man's gotta eat.
I have hope though. Open source will probably serve as a common framework to develop custom software for companies, by utilizing already existing pieces of free software. It's a form of leverage. And more specialized software will continue to be proprietary to offset the investment made by the creators.
We'll see what the future holds.
One might ask : did artists all starve, then, before the invention of copyright? The original idea of copyright was in part to encourage people to take the risk of publishing new works by offering them a time-limited monopoly, so that knowledge might by more swiftly disseminated, and in part, to ban works which the authorities disliked by denying them such. It wasn't intended to pay artists for their work, as such.
Cory Doctorow on "Why Microsoft should get out of DRM":
http://www.craphound.com/msftdrm.txt
http://calacanis.weblogsinc.com/common/videos/jason/cory.mp3
DRM seems to be a security risk to me. One could put spywares, trojans and viruses into a DRM-protected media. Can anti-virus programs scan DRM files for malware/evilware without breaking a law of some sort?
Don't get me wrong. I brought Doctorow's speech into this because he explicitly states the history of copyright laws, artists, media manufacturers and how politics and agendas have played into the mix of all.
People like Handel, Bach, Michelangelo, Donatello and so on lived from money earned off weathly patrons. Musicians earned income from performing live. Further, the costs for producing certain types of content just cannot be compared with the lone artist (or even groups) of ages past.
The rules of the game have changed massively, but people still need to live. Until all of society becomes Marxist I don't see how only one part can. If someone charges me for a loaf of bread, I have to change someone else so I can afford that loaf.
> People like Handel, Bach, Michelangelo, Donatello and so on lived from money earned off weathly patrons.
Exceptions to the rule and those still exist.
> Musicians earned income from performing live.
They still do.
> Further, the costs for producing certain types of content just cannot be compared with the lone artist (or even groups) of ages past.
Exactly. Production has become much, much cheaper and easier.
Now it's just a matter of finding an appropriate way of distribution and we're set.
Certainly, but my point was artists don't live off thin air. Neither do programmers.
I'm not too worried though.