▲ 484 ▼ Interesting how artists don't make enough money from their creations, so our solution is to make certain information illegal to share, rather than give them a universal basic income. (lemm.ee) submitted 2 years ago by JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world 230 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) you can sell your work without resorting to government enforced Monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] firadin@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (2 children) Not when work takes a large amount of time to produce the original, and very little work to produce a copy. An original and a copy of a digital artwork are identical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not when work takes a large amount of time to produce the original, and very little work to produce a copy if you've never seen someone sell their own creative work without the trappings of a government enforced monopoly, you should look into how any author or artist got paid before the statute of anne. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] droans@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) By the rich? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago patronage was common. you can't think that every artist got paid by someone who is rich though. permalink fedilink source parent [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 2 years ago wrong. permalink fedilink source parent [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (3 children) Monopolies are not about exclusively for one specific thing, but about scale and the availability of alternatives. It's not like you can only buy pictures or music from one artist, just that you have to buy art from the artist who made it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] explodicle@local106.com 2 points 2 years ago Further reading for anyone interested permalink fedilink source parent [–] rchive@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago In a sense it is a monopoly, just a very narrow one. The first step to identifying a monopoly is identifying the relevant market, and that is quite hard to do, actually. permalink fedilink source parent [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) none of this contradicts what I said. government enforced monopolies are wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The contradiction is that you imply copyright is always a government enforced monopoly. It can be, but it usually isn't, especially with art. So using it as a counter argument here makes no sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) copyright is always a government enforced monopoly. that's the only thing it is. it's a law that grants exclusive rights to sell. how do you think it's not in relation to art? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (2 children) Exclusive rights and monopolies are not the same thing. Monopolies are about access to a category of things or services that fulfill a need, not one specific thing. E.g. Samsung has exclusive rights to sell Samsung TVs, but they don't have a monopoly on TVs, and talking about a monopoly on Samsung TVs specifically makes no sense. Similarly no one has a monopoly on landscape drawings, rock music or scifi movies, just exclusive rights to specific pieces of art or literature that they created. As a side note, patents are a different story imo. Because overly broad patents can actually give you exclusive access to an entire category, and therefore a real monopoly. But you can't patent art. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) your Samsung example is trademark. it's not copyright. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Because the example is not about copyright in particular but monopoly vs exclusive access. I wanted one that's not about art to illustrate the point, and the priciple is the same in this regard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) trademark has nothing to do with copyright. they're two sets of laws that developed a two different times for two different reasons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) So, what does that have to do with the exclusive rights vs monopoly discussion? Both give you exclusive rights, doesn't matter that they come from two different sets of laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago trademark is a consumer protection. copyright is a fucking monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago do you know how I know that you aren't a copyright lawyer? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Girru00@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you explain how government enforced monopolies intersects with the discussion here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago that's what copyright and patent are. but you don't need to use the cudgel of the law to sell your work. in fact, most times, it's an irrelevant factor. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] firadin@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (2 children) Not when work takes a large amount of time to produce the original, and very little work to produce a copy. An original and a copy of a digital artwork are identical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not when work takes a large amount of time to produce the original, and very little work to produce a copy if you've never seen someone sell their own creative work without the trappings of a government enforced monopoly, you should look into how any author or artist got paid before the statute of anne. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] droans@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) By the rich? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago patronage was common. you can't think that every artist got paid by someone who is rich though. permalink fedilink source parent [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 2 years ago wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not when work takes a large amount of time to produce the original, and very little work to produce a copy if you've never seen someone sell their own creative work without the trappings of a government enforced monopoly, you should look into how any author or artist got paid before the statute of anne. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] droans@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) By the rich? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago patronage was common. you can't think that every artist got paid by someone who is rich though. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] droans@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) By the rich? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago patronage was common. you can't think that every artist got paid by someone who is rich though. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago patronage was common. you can't think that every artist got paid by someone who is rich though. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] shrugal@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (3 children) Monopolies are not about exclusively for one specific thing, but about scale and the availability of alternatives. It's not like you can only buy pictures or music from one artist, just that you have to buy art from the artist who made it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] explodicle@local106.com 2 points 2 years ago Further reading for anyone interested permalink fedilink source parent [–] rchive@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago In a sense it is a monopoly, just a very narrow one. The first step to identifying a monopoly is identifying the relevant market, and that is quite hard to do, actually. permalink fedilink source parent [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) none of this contradicts what I said. government enforced monopolies are wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The contradiction is that you imply copyright is always a government enforced monopoly. It can be, but it usually isn't, especially with art. So using it as a counter argument here makes no sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) copyright is always a government enforced monopoly. that's the only thing it is. it's a law that grants exclusive rights to sell. how do you think it's not in relation to art? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (2 children) Exclusive rights and monopolies are not the same thing. Monopolies are about access to a category of things or services that fulfill a need, not one specific thing. E.g. Samsung has exclusive rights to sell Samsung TVs, but they don't have a monopoly on TVs, and talking about a monopoly on Samsung TVs specifically makes no sense. Similarly no one has a monopoly on landscape drawings, rock music or scifi movies, just exclusive rights to specific pieces of art or literature that they created. As a side note, patents are a different story imo. Because overly broad patents can actually give you exclusive access to an entire category, and therefore a real monopoly. But you can't patent art. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) your Samsung example is trademark. it's not copyright. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Because the example is not about copyright in particular but monopoly vs exclusive access. I wanted one that's not about art to illustrate the point, and the priciple is the same in this regard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) trademark has nothing to do with copyright. they're two sets of laws that developed a two different times for two different reasons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) So, what does that have to do with the exclusive rights vs monopoly discussion? Both give you exclusive rights, doesn't matter that they come from two different sets of laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago trademark is a consumer protection. copyright is a fucking monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago do you know how I know that you aren't a copyright lawyer? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] explodicle@local106.com 2 points 2 years ago Further reading for anyone interested permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rchive@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago In a sense it is a monopoly, just a very narrow one. The first step to identifying a monopoly is identifying the relevant market, and that is quite hard to do, actually. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) none of this contradicts what I said. government enforced monopolies are wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The contradiction is that you imply copyright is always a government enforced monopoly. It can be, but it usually isn't, especially with art. So using it as a counter argument here makes no sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) copyright is always a government enforced monopoly. that's the only thing it is. it's a law that grants exclusive rights to sell. how do you think it's not in relation to art? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (2 children) Exclusive rights and monopolies are not the same thing. Monopolies are about access to a category of things or services that fulfill a need, not one specific thing. E.g. Samsung has exclusive rights to sell Samsung TVs, but they don't have a monopoly on TVs, and talking about a monopoly on Samsung TVs specifically makes no sense. Similarly no one has a monopoly on landscape drawings, rock music or scifi movies, just exclusive rights to specific pieces of art or literature that they created. As a side note, patents are a different story imo. Because overly broad patents can actually give you exclusive access to an entire category, and therefore a real monopoly. But you can't patent art. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) your Samsung example is trademark. it's not copyright. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Because the example is not about copyright in particular but monopoly vs exclusive access. I wanted one that's not about art to illustrate the point, and the priciple is the same in this regard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) trademark has nothing to do with copyright. they're two sets of laws that developed a two different times for two different reasons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) So, what does that have to do with the exclusive rights vs monopoly discussion? Both give you exclusive rights, doesn't matter that they come from two different sets of laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago trademark is a consumer protection. copyright is a fucking monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago do you know how I know that you aren't a copyright lawyer? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The contradiction is that you imply copyright is always a government enforced monopoly. It can be, but it usually isn't, especially with art. So using it as a counter argument here makes no sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) copyright is always a government enforced monopoly. that's the only thing it is. it's a law that grants exclusive rights to sell. how do you think it's not in relation to art? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (2 children) Exclusive rights and monopolies are not the same thing. Monopolies are about access to a category of things or services that fulfill a need, not one specific thing. E.g. Samsung has exclusive rights to sell Samsung TVs, but they don't have a monopoly on TVs, and talking about a monopoly on Samsung TVs specifically makes no sense. Similarly no one has a monopoly on landscape drawings, rock music or scifi movies, just exclusive rights to specific pieces of art or literature that they created. As a side note, patents are a different story imo. Because overly broad patents can actually give you exclusive access to an entire category, and therefore a real monopoly. But you can't patent art. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) your Samsung example is trademark. it's not copyright. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Because the example is not about copyright in particular but monopoly vs exclusive access. I wanted one that's not about art to illustrate the point, and the priciple is the same in this regard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) trademark has nothing to do with copyright. they're two sets of laws that developed a two different times for two different reasons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) So, what does that have to do with the exclusive rights vs monopoly discussion? Both give you exclusive rights, doesn't matter that they come from two different sets of laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago trademark is a consumer protection. copyright is a fucking monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago do you know how I know that you aren't a copyright lawyer? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) copyright is always a government enforced monopoly. that's the only thing it is. it's a law that grants exclusive rights to sell. how do you think it's not in relation to art? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (2 children) Exclusive rights and monopolies are not the same thing. Monopolies are about access to a category of things or services that fulfill a need, not one specific thing. E.g. Samsung has exclusive rights to sell Samsung TVs, but they don't have a monopoly on TVs, and talking about a monopoly on Samsung TVs specifically makes no sense. Similarly no one has a monopoly on landscape drawings, rock music or scifi movies, just exclusive rights to specific pieces of art or literature that they created. As a side note, patents are a different story imo. Because overly broad patents can actually give you exclusive access to an entire category, and therefore a real monopoly. But you can't patent art. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) your Samsung example is trademark. it's not copyright. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Because the example is not about copyright in particular but monopoly vs exclusive access. I wanted one that's not about art to illustrate the point, and the priciple is the same in this regard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) trademark has nothing to do with copyright. they're two sets of laws that developed a two different times for two different reasons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) So, what does that have to do with the exclusive rights vs monopoly discussion? Both give you exclusive rights, doesn't matter that they come from two different sets of laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago trademark is a consumer protection. copyright is a fucking monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago do you know how I know that you aren't a copyright lawyer? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (2 children) Exclusive rights and monopolies are not the same thing. Monopolies are about access to a category of things or services that fulfill a need, not one specific thing. E.g. Samsung has exclusive rights to sell Samsung TVs, but they don't have a monopoly on TVs, and talking about a monopoly on Samsung TVs specifically makes no sense. Similarly no one has a monopoly on landscape drawings, rock music or scifi movies, just exclusive rights to specific pieces of art or literature that they created. As a side note, patents are a different story imo. Because overly broad patents can actually give you exclusive access to an entire category, and therefore a real monopoly. But you can't patent art. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) your Samsung example is trademark. it's not copyright. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Because the example is not about copyright in particular but monopoly vs exclusive access. I wanted one that's not about art to illustrate the point, and the priciple is the same in this regard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) trademark has nothing to do with copyright. they're two sets of laws that developed a two different times for two different reasons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) So, what does that have to do with the exclusive rights vs monopoly discussion? Both give you exclusive rights, doesn't matter that they come from two different sets of laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago trademark is a consumer protection. copyright is a fucking monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago do you know how I know that you aren't a copyright lawyer? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) your Samsung example is trademark. it's not copyright. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Because the example is not about copyright in particular but monopoly vs exclusive access. I wanted one that's not about art to illustrate the point, and the priciple is the same in this regard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) trademark has nothing to do with copyright. they're two sets of laws that developed a two different times for two different reasons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) So, what does that have to do with the exclusive rights vs monopoly discussion? Both give you exclusive rights, doesn't matter that they come from two different sets of laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago trademark is a consumer protection. copyright is a fucking monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Because the example is not about copyright in particular but monopoly vs exclusive access. I wanted one that's not about art to illustrate the point, and the priciple is the same in this regard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) trademark has nothing to do with copyright. they're two sets of laws that developed a two different times for two different reasons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) So, what does that have to do with the exclusive rights vs monopoly discussion? Both give you exclusive rights, doesn't matter that they come from two different sets of laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago trademark is a consumer protection. copyright is a fucking monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) trademark has nothing to do with copyright. they're two sets of laws that developed a two different times for two different reasons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) So, what does that have to do with the exclusive rights vs monopoly discussion? Both give you exclusive rights, doesn't matter that they come from two different sets of laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago trademark is a consumer protection. copyright is a fucking monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) So, what does that have to do with the exclusive rights vs monopoly discussion? Both give you exclusive rights, doesn't matter that they come from two different sets of laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago trademark is a consumer protection. copyright is a fucking monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago trademark is a consumer protection. copyright is a fucking monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago do you know how I know that you aren't a copyright lawyer? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Girru00@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you explain how government enforced monopolies intersects with the discussion here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago that's what copyright and patent are. but you don't need to use the cudgel of the law to sell your work. in fact, most times, it's an irrelevant factor. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago that's what copyright and patent are. but you don't need to use the cudgel of the law to sell your work. in fact, most times, it's an irrelevant factor. permalink fedilink source parent