Are you a moral person?

[fromderinside]

Who do you think should profit from a work of art?

First, those, for whatever reason appreciate, laud, and desire the art. Second, those that produce the art for some interval of time fixed by average age work is notably appreciated. I think it should not extend to the lifetimes of heirs, nor should others profit unless they add value to the art through their use and presentation of it. Putting a Picasso image of a box of Spanish cereal should not be rewarded beyond the merit of the cereal itself. Should they get a greater price with the image than without they should be taxed additionally for that amount. Also those who do should be fined for so doing.

I say this and I have dogs in the hunt.

In fact, except for the fact that those who tend to be among the poorest among us, those who drop babies like sand at the beach should be taxed for such behavior. There are social costs which need be addressed for unwitting excessive behaviors. At some point there should be calculation based penalties for those who exceed in greed, including taking advantage of the social system with children, in the form of tax penalties. There is social need for social constraints on humans and those who think differently are living in a dream world.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What? I'd never thought I'd ever come to call you a corporate tool. He's rich because Disney and RKO manipulated copyright laws to the point of absurdity. And somehow managed to get the rest of the world to swallow their horseshit. Which is truly remarkable.

We've lost our compass completely regarding what is fair compensation to creators of copyright. Today it's bizarre what we waste our courts time with defending.

Who do you think should profit from a work of art?

And why do you care how much they profit if their profit is based on the free and uncoerced purchase of the art?

Because today's copyright law ignores human psychology. Copyright law rests on the Hegelian idea of the lone genius creating masterful works of art in a vacuum. Nietzsche had the same idea. Also Ayn Rand. That's not how art works, and not how art ever has worked. Artists, influence borrow and steal from eachother all the time. All art is collaborative. It's more helpful to see all of humanity as a single hive mind producing art collectively.

When a piece of art is created and is successful it quickly becomes part of our shared culture. It takes up space in our brains. Current copyright laws prohibit us from being allowed to use that, be inspired by it and create new art that we sell. It's nuts.

There has to be some sort of reasonableness. The fact that Bob Dylan makes more money today (for music he made in the 60'ies and 70'ies) than a top level scientist or even a politician is crazy. It's a system that has spun completely out of control.

I recommend reading up on the background to why we have copyright laws at all. Originally we didn't have copyright law. It was put into place so artists should have something, rather than nothing. It was to encourage more art to be produced. Early USA thought copyright was an infringement of free speech and were stubbornly against it. They saw it as pure evil. But noticed that Mark Twain therefore didn't publish anything in USA. He published all his work in England. So they begrudgingly accepted limitted copyrights.

I recommend reading this book, Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig. It's pro copyright. But gives a balanced view of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_(book)

I think a copyright of about 10 years after publication is fair.

There's another reason to change copyright laws. People follow incentives. Right now young people adore popstars rather than scientists and dream about being on stage. But we don't need more rock stars. What we really need is more scientists and engineers. So lets tweak the rules to get more healthy incentives for young people?

The current copyright rules are also wide open for abuse. Disney is a prime example. Constantly making cartoons of recently expired stories blocking anyone else from making films of them. Today its more lucrative to make hack art, hire a corporate lawyer, than to just focus on being creative. It's a fucked system

 

[untermensche]

What? I'd never thought I'd ever come to call you a corporate tool. He's rich because Disney and RKO manipulated copyright laws to the point of absurdity. And somehow managed to get the rest of the world to swallow their horseshit. Which is truly remarkable.

We've lost our compass completely regarding what is fair compensation to creators of copyright. Today it's bizarre what we waste our courts time with defending.

Who do you think should profit from a work of art?

And why do you care how much they profit if their profit is based on the free and uncoerced purchase of the art?

Because today's copyright law ignores human psychology. Copyright law rests on the Hegelian idea of the lone genius creating masterful works of art in a vacuum. Nietzsche had the same idea. Also Ayn Rand. That's not how art works, and not how art ever has worked. Artists, influence borrow and steal from eachother all the time. All art is collaborative. It's more helpful to see all of humanity as a single hive mind producing art collectively.

When a piece of art is created and is successful it quickly becomes part of our shared culture. It takes up space in our brains. Current copyright laws prohibit us from being allowed to use that, be inspired by it and create new art that we sell. It's nuts.

There has to be some sort of reasonableness. The fact that Bob Dylan makes more money today (for music he made in the 60'ies and 70'ies) than a top level scientist or even a politician is crazy. It's a system that has spun completely out of control.

I recommend reading up on the background to why we have copyright laws at all. Originally we didn't have copyright law. It was put into place so artists should have something, rather than nothing. It was to encourage more art to be produced. Early USA thought copyright was an infringement of free speech and were stubbornly against it. They saw it as pure evil. But noticed that Mark Twain therefore didn't publish anything in USA. He published all his work in England. So they begrudgingly accepted limitted copyrights.

I recommend reading this book, Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig. It's pro copyright. But gives a balanced view of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_(book)

I think a copyright of about 10 years after publication is fair.

There's another reason to change copyright laws. People follow incentives. Right now young people adore popstars rather than scientists and dream about being on stage. But we don't need more rock stars. What we really need is more scientists and engineers. So lets tweak the rules to get more healthy incentives for young people?

The current copyright rules are also wide open for abuse. Disney is a prime example. Constantly making cartoons of recently expired stories blocking anyone else from making films of them. Today its more lucrative to make hack art, hire a corporate lawyer, than to just focus on being creative. It's a fucked system

There is a lot of pleading but no rational argument here.

Yes all art is some derivative from what already exists. But it is what exists combined with a unique mind.

It is a creation associated with only one mind.

Only one mind could have written the songs Lennon wrote.

He owned them.

As far as something like Disney it is hard to say which mind owns what. It is a collaborative effort and not the creation of a single mind.

But the case of an individual song writer is very different.

The fact that Bob Dylan makes more money today (for music he made in the 60'ies and 70'ies) than a top level scientist or even a politician is crazy. It's a system that has spun completely out of control.

Capitalism is a system out of control with no rational outcomes. That is true.

The outcomes in capitalism mostly favor the whims of the dictators.

The protections of artists and inventors with copyright law are some of the few protections from the dictators that exist.

It is not easy to become a capitalist dictator.

But it is the game with the biggest rewards.

More than Bob Dylan.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There is a lot of pleading but no rational argument here.

Yes all art is some derivative from what already exists. But it is what exists combined with a unique mind.

It is a creation associated with only one mind.

False. An author has all the copyright for a book. Yet, every author is dependent on a good editor to make a good book. Yet, that skill is somehow not as valued.

Only one mind could have written the songs Lennon wrote.

He owned them.

What? There's loads of music from the 60'ies that sound very similar. He was just slightly better. What about all those people upon who he built his skill. The Abbey Road sound technicians? What about everybody who taught John Lennon?

Copyright is a completely artificial construct. Ownership for copyright is completely artificial. Pretending they stem from natural rights is dumb, IMHO. They don't.

The fact that artisitic copyrights are longer than industrial copyrights makes no sense. If copyrights on medication were longer medication could be cheaper. It makes sense.

As far as something like Disney it is hard to say which mind owns what. It is a collaborative effort and not the creation of a single mind.

As if every form of art.

But the case of an individual song writer is very different.

It's really not. Just because the people they've been inspired by have been lost to history, doesn't mean they aren't there.

The fact that Bob Dylan makes more money today (for music he made in the 60'ies and 70'ies) than a top level scientist or even a politician is crazy. It's a system that has spun completely out of control.

Capitalism is a system out of control with no rational outcomes. That is true.

The outcomes in capitalism mostly favor the whims of the dictators.

The protections of artists and inventors with copyright law are some of the few protections from the dictators that exist.

It is not easy to become a capitalist dictator.

But it is the game with the biggest rewards.

More than Bob Dylan.

What? Copyright is an attempt to make intellectual property into capital. I don't understand how you can support copyright and be against capitalism. You are aware that the prime benefactors of current copyright laws isn't the artists, but the people who market their work? It's built into the system.

It's like being pro Hitler, but anti Nazism.

If you want me to take you seriously, you really need to get your concepts straight.

Congratulations on being a corporate tool.

 

[untermensche]

False. An author has all the copyright for a book. Yet, every author is dependent on a good editor to make a good book. Yet, that skill is somehow not as valued.

Then the author and editor are collaborators.

So what?

What? There's loads of music from the 60'ies that sound very similar.

So what?

What about everybody who taught John Lennon?

Not collaborators on any specific work of art.

Copyright is a completely artificial construct.

So are laws against rape. So what?

As far as something like Disney it is hard to say which mind owns what. It is a collaborative effort and not the creation of a single mind.

As if every form of art.

Not true at all.

You merely have problems with the concept of collaboration.

What? Copyright is an attempt to make intellectual property into capital.

They are protections for artists.

Protections against capitalist vultures.

One of the few protections that exist.

Your ideas are absurd.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Then the author and editor are collaborators.

So what?



So what?

What about everybody who taught John Lennon?

Not collaborators on any specific work of art.

Copyright is a completely artificial construct.

So are laws against rape. So what?

As far as something like Disney it is hard to say which mind owns what. It is a collaborative effort and not the creation of a single mind.

As if every form of art.

Not true at all.

You merely have problems with the concept of collaboration.

What? Copyright is an attempt to make intellectual property into capital.

They are protections for artists.

Protections against capitalist vultures.

One of the few protections that exist.

Your ideas are absurd.

Lol. You're such a corporate tool. I'll leave you to it to sing praises for capitalism. You're one confused bunny

 

[untermensche]

You have run out of arguments and are reduced to spewing third rate opinions.

I oppose dictators and dictatorships.

Corporations are rigid dictatorships.

They have no connection to protecting artists and promoting art.

 

[fromderinside]

Unlike you, Dr. Zoidberg engages.

Got anything better than stereotypes and pontificates?

 

[untermensche]

Unlike you, Dr. Zoidberg engages.

Got anything better than stereotypes and pontificates?

I engage.

I just don't accept total shit ideas and people telling me lies are the truth.

My work is to destroy bad ideas, like the idea of dictatorship in the lives of people in any way.

You have no ideas here.

So you are dead already.

Or might as well be.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You have run out of arguments and are reduced to spewing third rate opinions.

I oppose dictators and dictatorships.

Corporations are rigid dictatorships.

They have no connection to protecting artists and promoting art.

Third rate opinions like that the goal of copyrights are to protect the capitalists controlling the IP's rather than the creators of those IP's.

You've bought into the right wing propaganda in order to gauge the consumers of art beyond anything reasonable.

Art is like dancing. The creators and the public always create all art together.

 

[untermensche]

I spoke of no goals.

I spoke of a band-aid in a sick capitalist system where dictators are accepted by immoral people.

And I spoke of one tiny aspect of art.

One artist and his songs that nobody else could have written.

The songwriter is dependent on a producer but the producer is a technician not an artist.

The producer has nothing without the song writer.

The song writer has a lot already without the producer.

How any future revenues should be shared is between the song writer and the producer.

Nobody is dictating over anybody else and nobody is being stolen from.

The main purpose of a capitalist dictatorship is to give the people at the top the power to take and give as they chose from the revenues made as a group.

In huge corporations the theft from workers allows a very few to make astronomical amounts that have no connection to ability.

It is an immoral system of dictatorship and theft.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I spoke of no goals.

I spoke of a band-aid in a sick capitalist system where dictators are accepted by immoral people.

And I spoke of one tiny aspect of art.

One artist and his songs that nobody else could have written.

The songwriter is dependent on a producer but the producer is a technician not an artist.

The producer has nothing without the song writer.

The song writer has a lot already without the producer.

How any future revenues should be shared is between the song writer and the producer.

Nobody is dictating over anybody else and nobody is being stolen from.

The main purpose of a capitalist dictatorship is to give the people at the top the power to take and give as they chose from the revenues made as a group.

In huge corporations the theft from workers allows a very few to make astronomical amounts that have no connection to ability.

It is an immoral system of dictatorship and theft.

Jesus fucking Christ you are clueless about how music and other art is produced. It's all teamwork. Today we give the teamlead all the IP rights. It's extremely unfair. The current copyright law only enhances the unfairness. I find it truly baffling how you are so anti-capitalist in one breath but super pro-capitalism in the other. Why don't you just marry Ayn Rand already

All copyright it rent seeking. It's cashing in on something you've done in the past without adding any new work to it. And also blocking a niche for similar work.

I'm not against copyright, but you are awfully blind about how it's used to exploit poor people.

 

[untermensche]

I accept that it is teamwork. But within the team there is one person who is irreplaceable (the song writer) and others that are talented but could be replaced.

And the team should profit as the team freely decides.

But none of that makes John Lennon immoral for making people happier and profiting from it.

The immorality is in those that accept dictatorship in any form within society.

That is the great immorality that exists today.

But just like immoralities in the past, like monarchy, the immorality is dressed up, not recognized by most, and accepted by most.

 

[fromderinside]

The main purpose of a capitalist dictatorship ^{need def} is to give the people at the top the power ^{need ref} to take and give as they chose ^{need ref} from the revenues made as a group.



Is it ^{what is it} is an immoral system of dictatorship and theft ^{need ref}.

Supply requested and we'll talk.

Just some wild shots ... a capitalist dictatorship is a bit like Russia's Oligarch system? Let me guess give to top of power is .... your take on Marx. It's not, but, it's my best guess of what you believe it is. I'll let you explain what it is because I have no idea what you are talking about. Who decides what is or is not a moral system whether dictator or no. Seems to me a Ponzi scheme is the epitome system of theft. Do you have an opinion?

So full of meaningless crap so filled with self important declaration. So naive of the real world even the pharmaceutical world, no, I mean the pharmacy world. Pharmaceutical is obviously way beyond you abilities to comprehend.

You're of the sort who claims the right to withhold medicines you stock to customers who have valid prescriptions just because you don't believe they should have them. If you held a moral position you wouldn't accept the medicines from those who make them. No that would be letting money stay on the table and it's your moral right to take all you can from those big money grabbers.

Your thinking is so twisted, so naive, so obviously not in tune with logical evaluation of any sort.

Its my view that by the time you get to this you will be so engrossed in Trump imitation that your hair will turn bald orange.

Now do you have an idea about how messed up you are in MHO?

 

[Bronzeage]

Basically, the current in use definition of moral and immoral is, "anything someone else does, that I don't like, is immoral.

 

[untermensche]

The main purpose of a capitalist dictatorship ^{need def} is to give the people at the top the power ^{need ref} to take and give as they chose ^{need ref} from the revenues made as a group.

Is it ^{what is it} is an immoral system of dictatorship and theft ^{need ref}.

Supply requested and we'll talk.

Dictatorial power structures are set up to serve the dictators.

They are a way to steal from others.

That is why people go to all the trouble to create them.

Just take a look at them and how revenues are divided.

The majority get a "market wage".

Another way of saying "lowest possible wage".

While the dictators get a dictator wage.

The highest possible.

If you can't see the immorality in that kind of setup then there is nothing to talk about.

 

[untermensche]

Basically, the current in use definition of moral and immoral is, "anything someone else does, that I don't like, is immoral.

You never heard anyone claim that dictatorships are immoral?

You never heard anyone say that one person REDUCING another to their tool is immoral?

You never heard that organized theft is immoral?

 

[fromderinside]

Supply requested and we'll talk.

Dictatorial power structures are set up to serve the dictators.

They are a way to steal from others.

That is why people go to all the trouble to create them.

Just take a look at them and how revenues are divided.

The majority get a "market wage".

Another way of saying "lowest possible wage".

The highest possible.

If you can't see the immorality in that kind of setup then there is nothing to talk about.

While the dictators get a dictator wage.Looks like you tried to supply a definition of what is a capitalist dictatorship. Actually you wound up describing what you believe such a dictatorship does. Your transition from a request of 'what is' to an answer of 'what does' is the problem with your presentation. How are we to work out operations when you only supply effects.

Possibly you misunderstood. I'll revise my request to what is a capitalist dictatorship. Specifically What is it about capitalism that makes it, in your mind a dictatorship. More specifically what are the mechanisms, the devices, the structure of capitalism that make it a dictatorship.

What is it about selling property using coin within a society that makes it a dictatorship and what is your construction of what is a dictatorship, again, mechanisms, devices, and structure of dictatorship.

I'll be clear "let the buyer beware' is not capitalism.

Let mer focus you further, can you justify why Adam Smith's capitalism

Adam Smith focused on the role of enlightened self-interest (the "invisible hand") and the role of specialization in promoting the efficiency of capital accumulation.

becomes Carl Marx' capitalism

it is defined by the creation of a labor market in which most people must sell their labor power in order to make a living. As Marx argued (see also Hilaire Belloc), capitalism also differs from other market economies that feature private ownership through the concentration of the means of production in the hands of a few or many

How does one justify few-many when many are owners and many are workers?

 

[fromderinside]

Basically, the current in use definition of moral and immoral is, "anything someone else does, that I don't like, is immoral.

You never heard anyone claim that dictatorships are immoral?

You never heard anyone say that one person REDUCING another to their tool is immoral?

You never heard that organized theft is immoral?

Now hearing is being? Thank you very much Mr. Trump.

 

[untermensche]

Basically, the current in use definition of moral and immoral is, "anything someone else does, that I don't like, is immoral.

You never heard anyone claim that dictatorships are immoral?

You never heard anyone say that one person REDUCING another to their tool is immoral?

You never heard that organized theft is immoral?

Now hearing is being? Thank you very much Mr. Trump.

No, hearing is being exposed to ideas.

Ideas like dictatorship is an immoral form of human interaction.

Immoral and dangerous.

Yet there are many that defend it.

Their defense is pathetic. Like those that defended kings and their right to dictatorial power for centuries.

Human social progress is slowed by the willingness of people to accept the immorality of their day.