you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

you can sell your work without resorting to government enforced Monopoly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    none of this contradicts what I said. government enforced monopolies are wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    your Samsung example is trademark. it's not copyright.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments