Summations Only

There has been a lot of talk in the Internet lately surrounding legislation pending in the U.S. House and Senate (SOPA and PIPA, respectively). The reported goals of the pending legislation are to protect 'intellectual property' (research, writings, music, productions, etc.).What no one seems to want to ask, detractors of the legislation included, is whether 'intellectual property' is something that actually needs to be protected, or, indeed, something that even exists at all.Supposedly 'piracy' stifles creativity by reducing incentive for artists to create, but this is the same old worn-out argument used when arguing for reducing taxes on people already shitting dollars. I maintain that free access to art, entertainment, research, etc. plays an essential role in spreading and encouraging creativity, and is, furthermore, a fundamental human right.Not only do efforts like SOPA and PIPA need to die where they stand; but we need to take even further measures to cut profit-making out of the arts and entertainment aspects of our communities.People shouldn't have to pay for access to their own culture!Jon

Freedom of Speech is really only a small part of it.The real issue is the use of government law in place of private distribution contracts.

The issue is that once someone makes their art public, they have made it public. It has become a part of the community and its culture.If people want to restrict access to their work only to people who pay, then there are simple ways to make that a reality (distributing contracts, restricting performances to certain physical locations, etc.).But people are wanting their work to be both public and for-profit, a ridiculous contradiction that can only be supported by excessive government involvement infringing on public rights.And if this weren't silly enough, the 'people' largely involved in wanting such contradictions aren't the artists themselves, but the immensely wealthy and profitable agencies that represent them. These laws have nothing to do with protecting artists and entertainers; they are solely designed for enriching fat men in poorly-tailored suits.Jon

It can definitely depend. Sometimes it's the corporations that are solely responsible for the 'art' created (boy bands anyone?) while the 'entertainers' are little more than slightly-talented actors reading a script; their product of such low value that only millions upon millions of dollars worth of advertising and marketing can succeed in popularizing it.And in today's age, real artists are rarely ever heard from.But that only speaks to how the entertainment industry is all industry and no entertainment. And why crap like SOPA/PIPA is all about making money and not about helping artists.
Jon

The point I'm trying to make, of course, is that 'intellectual property' isn't property in the sense that real things are property, and as such the government should have no involvement in protecting people's 'rights' to keep their intellectual property. If people want to share their work, they share their work, and accept all the consequences that result; if people don't want to share their work, then they can just keep it all in their head.If KFC has a secret it doesn't want to share, then they can simply not share it. But if they tell the world and then except to be able to sue everyone who uses it frying up their own chicken, they should be laughed out of court, not rewarded handsomely.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

Having a large public market is a necessity to artists, especially companies that produce expensive films and 'music'. If there were only five people living in the movie market, companies and the 'art' they produce simply couldn't exist; One-click shopping would be pointless; and so on. The large public market is great benefit to artists.At the same time the public market presents various risks, specifically that some members of the public may decide to enjoy the art without compensating the artist/production company. The large public market presents risks to artists.There appear to be some who just want all the benefits of a large public market without any of the risks and drawbacks.But as members of that large public market, what incentive is there for us to actually set them up with such a cozy little no-risk scenario? Why should businesses be granted the right to not have to suffer from the risks of their marketing strategies? It's not the government's job to eliminate risk from company investments.Jon

Because we are talking about laws relating to piracy for personal use not for financial gain.Without hearing everyone's opinion, I cannot be certain, but I think most people in favor of free access are opposed to the idea of using it to generate profit from other people's work, at least within a certain limited time window after the work's release.Jon

Who wants to abolish copyright?Jon

Obviously. But that only raises the question: Does the world need for-profit art?Jon

It makes it much more difficult.Who can compete with all that marketing?

Why isn't that sufficient?Jon

My point was that you don't need to create some separate legal classification along with slews of difficult-to-enforce laws in order to get the kind of protection your company got for their 'trade secret'.You just need a contract.

If you play dumb too often...It will no longer being 'playing'.

None you hear of. But as Tusko points out, this is more likely due to marketing budgets and publicity than to actual quantity and (especially) quality.I have sampled home-made and commercially produced entertainment and can tell you that the quality is of little difference The only thing the music industry has going for it is its large marketing budget, but this will, in time, be of little help to an industry that, as nwr said, has "not adapted to modern digital technology". With things like SOPA and PIPA, what we are seeing is not an attempt to protect art and innovation, but the beginning tears of a tantrum by a failing industry that refuses to compete but prefers, instead, to use legal force to advance its product.A chief worry now should be what steps the industry will try to take in the future to put an end to free artistic expression from any source in order to ensure itself a monopoly on 'entertainment'. When a company decides it is going to make money freedom be damned, we should all be a little worried and take steps to keep the money from talking louder than the singers.Jon

Who wants artists to give away copyrights?Who wants them to distribute their work without charging for it?