How many accusers need to come forward before you believe the accused is guilty?

[DrZoidberg]

If we would adjust them to a reasonable level being an artist would go back to being a low status job, which it is what it should be. While entertainment and inspiration is important, on Maslows hierarchy of needs, it's the least important. Every other function in society should be valued accordingly and given the respect it deserves.

Given that it's generally regarded that the difference between homo and the rest of Animalia is the capacity for abstract thought, wouldn't this approach neuter that which gives us joy and insight as humans?

You're right that food is more important in the short-term. But a world without art is not one I'd be interested in experiencing, precisely because I'm not a pig supping at a trough. Both making and enjoying art are human activities that lend richness to a life that would otherwise be one of an overlarge, abstracting brain starved of mental nutrition.

For all the necessities of life, it's not a good thing to overlook the inspirations that drive our creative approach to survival, in my opinion.

Irrelevant. I'm not arguing against art. I'm a huge art lover. I love dance for instance. Dancers don't get copyright for their work. So the copyright systems views their art as worthless. Sharknado is protected by copyright. The fact that the producers of Sharknado make more money than the dancers of the Bollshoi ballet is a travesty. But that's the result of this ridiculous system.

I'm not against copyrights. I think they're great at encouraging some art. But 10 years after publication is reasonable. 20 years after publication is extreme. 70 years after the authors death is absurd.

Art is inherently collaborative. Artists catch the zeitgeist. If you look at any great work all the artists friends was doing about the same thing. But just because you manage to figure out a way to take that zeitgeist, stick it in a box, stamp your trademark on it, doesn't make you deserve so much more than those artists around you who don't.

This is controversial around my friends because I know many artists. These guys would make art regardless if it paid the bills. Their goal is the art itself. Sometimes they work on stuff that is marketable. Sometimes they don't. If they would start caring about the money, rather than the art, the art would suck.

Sometimes value cannot be measured by numbers alone.

Then why do we have copyrights at all? The whole point of copyright laws is that we can measure artistic value in money. So I'm not sure what side you are arguing now?

 

[DrZoidberg]

BTW, if you know the history of copyright then you won't have any illusions about it being to protect creators. Our current copyright laws were put in place by Disney and RKO (radio plays) who lobbied heavily to keep extending it. Both RKO and Disney made a living of stealing other creators work, reworking it a bit, and putting it out and then blocking other people from using the same stories. Disney's fortune is a lesson in how to game a legal system. The current copyright system is specifically designed to protect the type of "art" Disney does, and ignore the rest. If your goal is fairness to artists, this is not how to do it. Do you think the artists who works for Disney got any of the share of the copyright? No, they did not. It all went to the corporation. Ie, not artists

And not only did they get away with an absolutely absurd system... otherwise sensible people keep defending this ludicrous system. Not even when rock stars started buying private jets to fly around in did people react. Do middle-aged men who spend most of their day drunk and high in leather pants banging groupies, really need state subsidies to support their lifestyle? Why do we keep putting up with it? I don't see the point.

But I guess it makes sense in a world where we elected a president like Donald Trump to defend the rights of "little people".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

See, there are problems with just accepting accusations as true without corroborating evidence . . .

Charges dropped against Bellevue cop due to ‘sophisticated ruse’

All charges against a former Bellevue police officer were dropped Monday when prosecutors stated that he did not commit the crimes he was arrested for, which were part of a “sophisticated ruse” put forth by the accuser.

KIRO Radio’s Hanna Scott reports that the King County Prosecutor’s Office is dropping charges against John Kivlin, and is not pursuing rape charges against another Bellevue cop, Richard Newell.

According to court documents, the accuser “fabricated evidence and used a sophisticated ruse to deceive Kivlin, law enforcement, prosecutors, and the court in order to have Kivlin taken into custody and charged with additional crimes. The result of the (accuser’s) fabrication was that law enforcement arrested Kivlin for crimes he did not commit, prosecutors filed charges against Kivlin for crimes he did not commit, and the court held Kivlin in custody for order violations which he did not commit.”

Kivlin was arrested in April and accused of assaulting his girlfriend twice. The two reportedly met on Craigslist and began a relationship in 2015. But the woman began making allegations against Kivlin and other Bellevue police officers in 2018. After Kivlin was arrested and released for the assault allegations, he reportedly contacted the woman in violation of a court order in July. He was then charged with witness tampering.

Kivlin was arrested again for contacting the woman in August. But prosecutors say the woman making the allegations was lying this time. After inspecting Kivlin’s phone and billing records, it appears that the woman got Kivlin to text with her using a fake name in August.

Prosecutor’s add that she admitted that rape allegations she previously made in 2009 and 2010 were also false.

Exactly. One even needs to be careful when it's multiple accusers that are not independent:

https://triblive.com/local/regional...y-mean-girls-of-targeting-teen-boy-with-false

This one had five accusers--but their fabrication unraveled.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Before we hiked up copyright lengths engineers and scientists were among our most high status peers. Which of those do you think is the most useful for society? Young people flock to the humanities instead of engineering educations. It's already an obviously broken system.

lol, you think kids pass up careers in engineering or information technology because of the allure of making a mint in art? Look at the numbers of successful engineers, then look at the numbers of successful artists, and while you're at it, maybe you could post some stats about BSE degrees handed out compared to MFAs?

I can tell you right now, as a copyrighted songwriter, a copyright doesn't guarantee shit. Or more to the point, it does guarantee shit: shitty jobs, a shitty standard of living, and shitty treatment by people who are happy to consume art but unhappy to pay for it, much less produce it themselves.

We have a perpetual shortage of engineers. It's an acute problem in the world, and has been for fifty years. The shortage of engineers is only growing. We have never had a shortage of artists. Not even in the days before copyrights. Besides... you are thinking about copyrights all wrong. They're not designed to encourage art. They're designed to protect the rights of media corporations. The current copyright laws aren't helping artists at all. All the classical types of art get nothing from today's paradigm.

In Sweden and Denmark young people want to work in media because they think it's more glamorous than being an engineer or scientist. Even smart people. That's a problem. If working in media is glamorous the society supporting it has failed IMHO.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Irrelevant. I'm not arguing against art. I'm a huge art lover. I love dance for instance. Dancers don't get copyright for their work. So the copyright systems views their art as worthless. Sharknado is protected by copyright. The fact that the producers of Sharknado make more money than the dancers of the Bollshoi ballet is a travesty. But that's the result of this ridiculous system.

I'm not against copyrights. I think they're great at encouraging some art. But 10 years after publication is reasonable. 20 years after publication is extreme. 70 years after the authors death is absurd.

We disagree on those numbers. Ten years after publication, someone can republish a successful book without paying royalties? Now that's absurd. If you think modern culture is swill right now, just imagine a world where artists have to compete with pirated versions of their work rather than spending their energy on new art.

As for dance not being covered, choreography can be copyrighted. Dancers rarely own the rights, but performance copyright is long-established law. Giving the copyright to the dancers rather than the choreographers is akin to giving the copyright to the violinists rather than Beethoven.

Sometimes value cannot be measured by numbers alone.

Then why do we have copyrights at all? The whole point of copyright laws is that we can measure artistic value in money. So I'm not sure what side you are arguing now?

We have copyright so the artists can eat, sure. That doesn't mean that the money is the measure of artistic value, and certainly doesn't mean that any such valuation is the purpose of copyright law. We don't issue copyrights in order to determine artistic merit. We issue copyrights so that artists can produce art with the knowledge that their intellectual property can benefit them financially.

Just because I think copyright law is fine as it is because it monetizes art, that doesn't mean that I think that's where art's value lies. I'm not arguing any side. As an art consumer as well as low-grade producer, I'm happy for copyright law being what it is; I benefit from either standpoint, consumer or producer.

I'm glad my favorite artists can spend their time producing new works rather than spending time fighting for share in an unprotected marketplace. And I'm glad some jerk cannot change one note in a song I wrote and call it his own.

BTW, if you know the history of copyright then you won't have any illusions about it being to protect creators. Our current copyright laws were put in place by Disney and RKO (radio plays) who lobbied heavily to keep extending it. Both RKO and Disney made a living of stealing other creators work, reworking it a bit, and putting it out and then blocking other people from using the same stories. Disney's fortune is a lesson in how to game a legal system. The current copyright system is specifically designed to protect the type of "art" Disney does, and ignore the rest.

Wait, it only protects mass-consumer art? Or it only protects animation?

On a serious note, the provenance of the law doesn't mean that it isn't benefiting smaller artists protect their works from rapacious studios. Look at Satriani's successful suit against Coldplay, for instance, to see an example of a largely unknown musician successfully defending his rights against the corporate shills.

We have a perpetual shortage of engineers. It's an acute problem in the world, and has been for fifty years. The shortage of engineers is only growing. We have never had a shortage of artists. Not even in the days before copyrights.

Post hoc fallacy is a thing. Could you perhaps take the time to show a causal link?

Besides... you are thinking about copyrights all wrong. They're not designed to encourage art. They're designed to protect the rights of media corporations. The current copyright laws aren't helping artists at all. All the classical types of art get nothing from today's paradigm.

You realize classical art is not the entirety of the art world, right? And -- you say that classical arts get nothing, but this is palpably incorrect. A symphony orchestra can record and copyright a performance of a public-domain piece, and then sell recordings of it to fund the orchestra. Those arrangements cannot legally be copied, and that CD/digital file cannot legally be pirated.

The idea that copyright only serves the interests of corporate media is silly.

In Sweden and Denmark young people want to work in media because they think it's more glamorous than being an engineer or scientist. Even smart people. That's a problem. If working in media is glamorous the society supporting it has failed IMHO.

Let's see your numbers. How many students are selecting media careers? How big has been the loss in engineering degrees? And most importantly, can you show that those media students would have gone on to study engineering instead?

 

[DrZoidberg]

We disagree on those numbers. Ten years after publication, someone can republish a successful book without paying royalties? Now that's absurd. If you think modern culture is swill right now, just imagine a world where artists have to compete with pirated versions of their work rather than spending their energy on new art.

It's exactly people saying this which I think is crazy. Why would that follow? There is no logic to what you are saying.

Arguments... do you have them?

BTW, 70 years after publication means that lots of people who had nothing to do with the production of a work, get to control it as if they had. That's certainly true for Tolkien's family who treat managing the Tolkien copyright like a full time job. It's a whole family who do nothing but this. Not to mention Kafka's work. Kafka never made any money from his work. Neither did Max Brood, his friend, who inherited everything from him. But Max's heirs. At that point wtf? Peter Pan's copyright was the sole investor paying for a children hospital in Scotland. Sure, a worthy cause... but is this really how we want to use copyrights? If they're not intended to benefit the author... what are they for? No dead author will be able to use that money.

As for dance not being covered, choreography can be copyrighted. Dancers rarely own the rights, but performance copyright is long-established law. Giving the copyright to the dancers rather than the choreographers is akin to giving the copyright to the violinists rather than Beethoven.

Ehe... great choreographers aren't nearly as famous as great dancers. You obviously don't know how dance works. Dancers aren't as easily replaceable. But you bring up a good point... why aren't violinists given the same protection as composers? Why is one art worthy of protection, while the other is not? It makes no sense.

Then why do we have copyrights at all? The whole point of copyright laws is that we can measure artistic value in money. So I'm not sure what side you are arguing now?

We have copyright so the artists can eat, sure. That doesn't mean that the money is the measure of artistic value, and certainly doesn't mean that any such valuation is the purpose of copyright law. We don't issue copyrights in order to determine artistic merit. We issue copyrights so that artists can produce art with the knowledge that their intellectual property can benefit them financially.

I have never seen a dead person eating. Also... nobody goes into art to make money. They do it because they feel they have to. Typically... by the time they reach a point where they'll get kick-backs from copyright, they're already well established and are making a good living. The copyright comes way too late to make a difference.

Just because I think copyright law is fine as it is because it monetizes art, that doesn't mean that I think that's where art's value lies. I'm not arguing any side. As an art consumer as well as low-grade producer, I'm happy for copyright law being what it is; I benefit from either standpoint, consumer or producer.

I think that's exactly what you are doing.

Artists don't exist in a vacuum. I believe all art is essentially collaborative. I don't believe in lone geniuses. So I have no problem seeing copyrights expire after 20 years. Which I still think is extremely long.

I'm glad my favorite artists can spend their time producing new works rather than spending time fighting for share in an unprotected marketplace. And I'm glad some jerk cannot change one note in a song I wrote and call it his own.

What makes him a jerk? Is art about creating beauty or about being famous? If it's about fame, you're in it for the wrong reasons, and your art will suck.

BTW, if you know the history of copyright then you won't have any illusions about it being to protect creators. Our current copyright laws were put in place by Disney and RKO (radio plays) who lobbied heavily to keep extending it. Both RKO and Disney made a living of stealing other creators work, reworking it a bit, and putting it out and then blocking other people from using the same stories. Disney's fortune is a lesson in how to game a legal system. The current copyright system is specifically designed to protect the type of "art" Disney does, and ignore the rest.

Wait, it only protects mass-consumer art? Or it only protects animation?

On a serious note, the provenance of the law doesn't mean that it isn't benefiting smaller artists protect their works from rapacious studios. Look at Satriani's successful suit against Coldplay, for instance, to see an example of a largely unknown musician successfully defending his rights against the corporate shills.

Ehe... what? WTF does that prove? That once in a million years people who are completely deluded about copyrights get a bone thrown at them. Yay. Hooray.

We have a perpetual shortage of engineers. It's an acute problem in the world, and has been for fifty years. The shortage of engineers is only growing. We have never had a shortage of artists. Not even in the days before copyrights.

Post hoc fallacy is a thing. Could you perhaps take the time to show a causal link?

Before the rise of Hollywood and huge sums of money rolling in, actors had the same status as prostitutes. Prostitutes still have low status, while actors still have high status. Actors are still doing the same job. As are prostitutes. How more obvious causal link do you need?

Besides... you are thinking about copyrights all wrong. They're not designed to encourage art. They're designed to protect the rights of media corporations. The current copyright laws aren't helping artists at all. All the classical types of art get nothing from today's paradigm.

You realize classical art is not the entirety of the art world, right? And -- you say that classical arts get nothing, but this is palpably incorrect. A symphony orchestra can record and copyright a performance of a public-domain piece, and then sell recordings of it to fund the orchestra. Those arrangements cannot legally be copied, and that CD/digital file cannot legally be pirated.

The idea that copyright only serves the interests of corporate media is silly.

In Sweden and Denmark young people want to work in media because they think it's more glamorous than being an engineer or scientist. Even smart people. That's a problem. If working in media is glamorous the society supporting it has failed IMHO.

Let's see your numbers. How many students are selecting media careers? How big has been the loss in engineering degrees? And most importantly, can you show that those media students would have gone on to study engineering instead?

What? Are you seriously questioning this?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

BTW, 70 years after publication means that lots of people who had nothing to do with the production of a work, get to control it as if they had. That's certainly true for Tolkien's family who treat managing the Tolkien copyright like a full time job. It's a whole family who do nothing but this. Not to mention Kafka's work. Kafka never made any money from his work. Neither did Max Brood, his friend, who inherited everything from him. But Max's heirs. At that point wtf? Peter Pan's copyright was the sole investor paying for a children hospital in Scotland. Sure, a worthy cause... but is this really how we want to use copyrights? If they're not intended to benefit the author... what are they for? No dead author will be able to use that money.

An author creates something of value, why shouldn't they be able to leave it to their heirs just like anyone else who creates something of value?

1) I think we should rethink the duration on copyright entirely. My approach would be to make copyright eternal but with a use-it-or-lose-it provision. To maintain copyright on a work it must be available at a reasonable (say, no more than 3x the inflation-adjusted initial price) price. I actually don't mind things like the Tolkien copyright. What I do mind is copyrights on long-abandoned works. If the owner isn't interested in making money off the copyright anymore what's the point in having it?

1a) I would count modified versions as maintaining the copyright. There's no requirement to keep selling the original version.

2) I think we need a separate system for protecting universes. One of the big driving forces behind the ever-increasing copyright duration is Disney seeking to protect their mouse. If the copyright on the earliest works were to lapse they would lose the ability to protect their mouse.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's exactly people saying this which I think is crazy. Why would that follow? There is no logic to what you are saying.

Arguments... do you have them?

Yes. If I have to spend four months writing a book which you can thereafter steal and sell without compensating me at all, you are saving the costs of creation (which in my case would be feeding myself while I'm creating). If you can swoop in and sell my intellectual output without compensation, your costs would be lower; after all, you don't have to pay the author, can discount your pirated edition appropriately, and run me out of business.

But -- where are you going to get your next book from?

BTW, 70 years after publication means that lots of people who had nothing to do with the production of a work, get to control it as if they had. That's certainly true for Tolkien's family who treat managing the Tolkien copyright like a full time job. It's a whole family who do nothing but this. Not to mention Kafka's work. Kafka never made any money from his work. Neither did Max Brood, his friend, who inherited everything from him. But Max's heirs. At that point wtf? Peter Pan's copyright was the sole investor paying for a children hospital in Scotland. Sure, a worthy cause... but is this really how we want to use copyrights? If they're not intended to benefit the author... what are they for? No dead author will be able to use that money.

I take it you're against inheritances, then.

Ehe... great choreographers aren't nearly as famous as great dancers. You obviously don't know how dance works. Dancers aren't as easily replaceable. But you bring up a good point... why aren't violinists given the same protection as composers? Why is one art worthy of protection, while the other is not? It makes no sense.

Actually, they are, as are dancers. Anyone who knows much about copyright knows that copyrights aren't only issued for composition but also for performances -- meaninig that YoYo Ma covering Beethoven's Fifth can monetize his version while not retaining any right to the public-domain piece.

Question: have you ever copyrighted anything?

I have never seen a dead person eating. Also... nobody goes into art to make money. They do it because they feel they have to. Typically... by the time they reach a point where they'll get kick-backs from copyright, they're already well established and are making a good living. The copyright comes way too late to make a difference.

... wherein you conveniently ignore that your "ten year" rule would most often expire before the artist would, which means my point has relevance even if you cannot see it.

As far as going into art to make money, of course you're right. The sad thing is that the money ain't there, in large part because of people like you who love to appreciate it but resent paying for it.

I think that's exactly what you are doing.

You're wrong.

Artists don't exist in a vacuum. I believe all art is essentially collaborative. I don't believe in lone geniuses. So I have no problem seeing copyrights expire after 20 years. Which I still think is extremely long.

I don't care about your beliefs, especially when they're so easily show false. I'll invite you to look up "artistic collaboration" in Google and see what you find.

What makes him a jerk? Is art about creating beauty or about being famous? If it's about fame, you're in it for the wrong reasons, and your art will suck.

What makes him a jerk is taking my creation, making and insignificant change, and claiming it for himself as if the inspiration, the insight was his.

Ehe... what? WTF does that prove? That once in a million years people who are completely deluded about copyrights get a bone thrown at them. Yay. Hooray.

Way to dismiss what you cannot refute. Care4 to address my point now with a little substance ... or is that beyond your ken?

Before the rise of Hollywood and huge sums of money rolling in, actors had the same status as prostitutes. Prostitutes still have low status, while actors still have high status. Actors are still doing the same job. As are prostitutes. How more obvious causal link do you need?

What does this have to do with falling numbers of engineering degrees?

I'd suggest you start tying your points together with a little coherence; that's the glue of a good discussion.

In Sweden and Denmark young people want to work in media because they think it's more glamorous than being an engineer or scientist. Even smart people. That's a problem. If working in media is glamorous the society supporting it has failed IMHO.

Let's see your numbers. How many students are selecting media careers? How big has been the loss in engineering degrees? And most importantly, can you show that those media students would have gone on to study engineering instead?

What? Are you seriously questioning this?

Yes, I am. I want to see something where you've got art students saying, "I thought about becoming an engineer, but this art stuff looked so much more attractive."

Yes, sad fact: you'll actually have to support your claims here in this discussion. If you cannot or will not do so, do not expect me to stay as an audience for claims you're pulling out of thin air. Support your claims, or lose audience.

Either you can do it, or you cannot. We'll see.

 

[steve_bank]

No number. It takes evidence and corroboration.

In the current story I believe she may have had some kind of bad experience. Who knows what it may have been. From her testimony before congress she appeared troubled and unsure of facts. Supporting winessness she named did not support her story.

I hate to invoke TV, but Law And Order Special Victims unit portrayed this theme a number of times. An old trauma misdirected at the wrong person, or a trauma that grow from nothing over time. The brain fills in the gaps over time.

You are innocent until proven guilty. The way the climate is now it is possible to destroy a man policaly by unsubstantiated claims.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You are innocent until proven guilty. The way the climate is now it is possible to destroy a man policaly by unsubstantiated claims.

Or judge him on how he reacts to such accusations. If I asked if you have stopped beating your wife, you may get quite irate. If you do, now I can now use that reaction to demonstrate you are deeply flawed as a human being and have temper issues. So it's all win for me if you are my political opponent.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

You are innocent until proven guilty. The way the climate is now it is possible to destroy a man policaly by unsubstantiated claims.

Or judge him on how he reacts to such accusations. If I asked if you have stopped beating your wife, you may get quite irate. If you do, now I can now use that reaction to demonstrate you are deeply flawed as a human being and have temper issues. So it's all win for me if you are my political opponent.

Judging someone by how they react to charges is fair game. Laying false charges isn't.

Of course we don't, and won't, know if the charges against Kavanaugh are false, because Trump was too fearful to give the FBI sufficient leash. That rather leaves judging by comportment the fallback position, and renders protests against such easily riposted. And whether his comportment reveals signs of guilt or not is irrelevant. We've seen that his comportment is immoderate under stress, and that rather undermines any claim to his being qualified to sit in judgement.

But he's on the Court, and let's hope his apologists are right.

Okay, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You are innocent until proven guilty. The way the climate is now it is possible to destroy a man policaly by unsubstantiated claims.

Or judge him on how he reacts to such accusations. If I asked if you have stopped beating your wife, you may get quite irate. If you do, now I can now use that reaction to demonstrate you are deeply flawed as a human being and have temper issues. So it's all win for me if you are my political opponent.

Judging someone by how they react to charges is fair game. Laying false charges isn't.

Of course we don't, and won't, know if the charges against Kavanaugh are false, because Trump was too fearful to give the FBI sufficient leash. That rather leaves judging by comportment the fallback position, and renders protests against such easily riposted. And whether his comportment reveals signs of guilt or not is irrelevant. We've seen that his comportment is immoderate under stress, and that rather undermines any claim to his being qualified to sit in judgement.

But he's on the Court, and let's hope his apologists are right.

Okay, I'm not holding my breath.

It's super hard to judge someone's reactions. People who are in shock do very strange things

 

[DrZoidberg]

BTW, 70 years after publication means that lots of people who had nothing to do with the production of a work, get to control it as if they had. That's certainly true for Tolkien's family who treat managing the Tolkien copyright like a full time job. It's a whole family who do nothing but this. Not to mention Kafka's work. Kafka never made any money from his work. Neither did Max Brood, his friend, who inherited everything from him. But Max's heirs. At that point wtf? Peter Pan's copyright was the sole investor paying for a children hospital in Scotland. Sure, a worthy cause... but is this really how we want to use copyrights? If they're not intended to benefit the author... what are they for? No dead author will be able to use that money.

An author creates something of value, why shouldn't they be able to leave it to their heirs just like anyone else who creates something of value?

1) I think we should rethink the duration on copyright entirely. My approach would be to make copyright eternal but with a use-it-or-lose-it provision. To maintain copyright on a work it must be available at a reasonable (say, no more than 3x the inflation-adjusted initial price) price. I actually don't mind things like the Tolkien copyright. What I do mind is copyrights on long-abandoned works. If the owner isn't interested in making money off the copyright anymore what's the point in having it?

1a) I would count modified versions as maintaining the copyright. There's no requirement to keep selling the original version.

2) I think we need a separate system for protecting universes. One of the big driving forces behind the ever-increasing copyright duration is Disney seeking to protect their mouse. If the copyright on the earliest works were to lapse they would lose the ability to protect their mouse.

It doesn't work because of memes. Not the funny pictures, but what the word actually means. When we see things we immediately incorporate it into our psyche and start building upon it. That's why can art exists.

Also the artists themselves work like this. They all base their work on the work of others. Their contribution is always tiny. We just have a tendency to forget how the chain of events went prior to a great work. Which is why the current copyright laws are absurd. Eternal copyright! The way you reason makes it sound as you're paid by Disney to say it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes. If I have to spend four months writing a book which you can thereafter steal and sell without compensating me at all, you are saving the costs of creation (which in my case would be feeding myself while I'm creating). If you can swoop in and sell my intellectual output without compensation, your costs would be lower; after all, you don't have to pay the author, can discount your pirated edition appropriately, and run me out of business.

But -- where are you going to get your next book from?

False dichotomy. I'm for copyright. So this whole paragraph is a straw man.

I take it you're against inheritances, then.

I'm against them on ethical grounds. I think inheritances are wrong. Since they give people privilege in society who didn't earn them themselves. That's just straight up immoral. I'm for equal opportunity in life. And inheritance fucks with that.

But I realize the value of keeping them. Since we don't want capital squandered. But kept intact after death and the companies keep operating as before. So I think is better to keep them.

I'm fundamentally pragmatic. I'll support what works above what's most morally right.

Ehe... great choreographers aren't nearly as famous as great dancers. You obviously don't know how dance works. Dancers aren't as easily replaceable. But you bring up a good point... why aren't violinists given the same protection as composers? Why is one art worthy of protection, while the other is not? It makes no sense.

Actually, they are, as are dancers. Anyone who knows much about copyright knows that copyrights aren't only issued for composition but also for performances -- meaninig that YoYo Ma covering Beethoven's Fifth can monetize his version while not retaining any right to the public-domain piece.

Stop talking shit. We don't consume dance as we consume movies. It's a stupid comparison.

Question: have you ever copyrighted anything?

I hate this type of arguments. It doesn't matter if I've copyrighted anything to discuss it

I'm just well read on copyright law and they don't protect what we want them to protect.

I have never seen a dead person eating. Also... nobody goes into art to make money. They do it because they feel they have to. Typically... by the time they reach a point where they'll get kick-backs from copyright, they're already well established and are making a good living. The copyright comes way too late to make a difference.

... wherein you conveniently ignore that your "ten year" rule would most often expire before the artist would, which means my point has relevance even if you cannot see it.

As far as going into art to make money, of course you're right. The sad thing is that the money ain't there, in large part because of people like you who love to appreciate it but resent paying for it.

In Sweden prominent artists get salaries for life from the government. I think it's a good system. I'm friends with Swedens two most famous dancers and they live off this.

I don't resent paying for it. If you think that's my argument you've completely mistaken yourself. I don't like that corporations own parts of our brains, and we're not allowed to do anything with it. I want a more fluid and living culture. I want more art. Not less. Art should be about the joy of creating. Not a way to get rich.

Artists don't exist in a vacuum. I believe all art is essentially collaborative. I don't believe in lone geniuses. So I have no problem seeing copyrights expire after 20 years. Which I still think is extremely long.

I don't care about your beliefs, especially when they're so easily show false. I'll invite you to look up "artistic collaboration" in Google and see what you find.

Even artists working alone collaborate with artists before them and contemporary artists. It's unavoidable.

What makes him a jerk? Is art about creating beauty or about being famous? If it's about fame, you're in it for the wrong reasons, and your art will suck.

What makes him a jerk is taking my creation, making and insignificant change, and claiming it for himself as if the inspiration, the insight was his.

I don't think that's being a jerk. He's celebrating your work. How about being proud instead? It's the highest form of flattery.

Before the rise of Hollywood and huge sums of money rolling in, actors had the same status as prostitutes. Prostitutes still have low status, while actors still have high status. Actors are still doing the same job. As are prostitutes. How more obvious causal link do you need?

What does this have to do with falling numbers of engineering degrees?

I'd suggest you start tying your points together with a little coherence; that's the glue of a good discussion.

Because we've artificially inflated the status if art by subsidising it with money. That's why.

In Sweden and Denmark young people want to work in media because they think it's more glamorous than being an engineer or scientist. Even smart people. That's a problem. If working in media is glamorous the society supporting it has failed IMHO.

Let's see your numbers. How many students are selecting media careers? How big has been the loss in engineering degrees? And most importantly, can you show that those media students would have gone on to study engineering instead?

What? Are you seriously questioning this?

Yes, I am. I want to see something where you've got art students saying, "I thought about becoming an engineer, but this art stuff looked so much more attractive."

Yes, sad fact: you'll actually have to support your claims here in this discussion. If you cannot or will not do so, do not expect me to stay as an audience for claims you're pulling out of thin air. Support your claims, or lose audience.

Either you can do it, or you cannot. We'll see.

Ehe. I don't have to, because it's incredibly obvious. I think you're also aware of this. I think you're just bullshitting now.

 

[ZiprHead]

Judging someone by how they react to charges is fair game. Laying false charges isn't.

Of course we don't, and won't, know if the charges against Kavanaugh are false, because Trump was too fearful to give the FBI sufficient leash. That rather leaves judging by comportment the fallback position, and renders protests against such easily riposted. And whether his comportment reveals signs of guilt or not is irrelevant. We've seen that his comportment is immoderate under stress, and that rather undermines any claim to his being qualified to sit in judgement.

But he's on the Court, and let's hope his apologists are right.

Okay, I'm not holding my breath.

It's super hard to judge someone's reactions. People who are in shock do very strange things

Do you really think BK was in shock during his testimony? It's not like this was just sprung on him at the time.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Judging someone by how they react to charges is fair game. Laying false charges isn't.

Of course we don't, and won't, know if the charges against Kavanaugh are false, because Trump was too fearful to give the FBI sufficient leash. That rather leaves judging by comportment the fallback position, and renders protests against such easily riposted. And whether his comportment reveals signs of guilt or not is irrelevant. We've seen that his comportment is immoderate under stress, and that rather undermines any claim to his being qualified to sit in judgement.

But he's on the Court, and let's hope his apologists are right.

Okay, I'm not holding my breath.

It's super hard to judge someone's reactions. People who are in shock do very strange things

Do you really think BK was in shock during his testimony? It's not like this was just sprung on him at the time.

No. In his case I'm sure he was instructed by Republican spin doctors. The whole thing stunk. First off... why does she accuse him of this now? I think the accusation, while true, the timing was probably politically motivated. I think it was all bullshit on all sides. Pure politically motivated theatre.

 

[blastula]

No. In his case I'm sure he was instructed by Republican spin doctors. The whole thing stunk. First off... why does she accuse him of this now? I think the accusation, while true, the timing was probably politically motivated. I think it was all bullshit on all sides. Pure politically motivated theatre.

You think the accusation was political? She made it before he was nominated. As she has said, there were other qualified candidates. Stopping Kavanaugh wouldn't stop someone worse politically from being confirmed.

 

[Jarhyn]

Do you really think BK was in shock during his testimony? It's not like this was just sprung on him at the time.

No. In his case I'm sure he was instructed by Republican spin doctors. The whole thing stunk. First off... why does she accuse him of this now? I think the accusation, while true, the timing was probably politically motivated. I think it was all bullshit on all sides. Pure politically motivated theatre.

Or, perhaps, motivated by not wanting to see the person who raped her elevated to a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS. It's the difference between having to occasionally be exposed to an obscure reference to him, and being exposed directly to decisions he makes and discussion about him and having nowhere you can escape that

 

[DrZoidberg]

No. In his case I'm sure he was instructed by Republican spin doctors. The whole thing stunk. First off... why does she accuse him of this now? I think the accusation, while true, the timing was probably politically motivated. I think it was all bullshit on all sides. Pure politically motivated theatre.

You think the accusation was political? She made it before he was nominated. As she has said, there were other qualified candidates. Stopping Kavanaugh wouldn't stop someone worse politically from being confirmed.

Yes, I do. She must have known that a 30 year old accusation of rape with no evidence wouldn't stick in a trained lawyer. It wouldn't even stick on a non-trained lawyer. It couldn't be anything but an attempt to smear his name and in extension the Republican party.

This would be the case regardless if the accusation was true or not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. In his case I'm sure he was instructed by Republican spin doctors. The whole thing stunk. First off... why does she accuse him of this now? I think the accusation, while true, the timing was probably politically motivated. I think it was all bullshit on all sides. Pure politically motivated theatre.

You think the accusation was political? She made it before he was nominated. As she has said, there were other qualified candidates. Stopping Kavanaugh wouldn't stop someone worse politically from being confirmed.

Yes, I do. She must have known that a 30 year old accusation of rape with no evidence wouldn't stick in a trained lawyer. It wouldn't even stick on a non-trained lawyer. It couldn't be anything but an attempt to smear his name and in extension the Republican party.

This would be the case regardless if the accusation was true or not.

It didn't stick because the Republicans didn't want it to stick. That says nothing about the truth.

1) His reaction makes it pretty likely he was guilty.

2) She made several claims in her allegation. While they don't prove exactly what happened the fact that they check out makes it pretty clear something happened--and I have a hard time picturing it being anything other than an assault. That doesn't prove which of the partygoers was responsible but given #1 I'm pretty sure she named the right one.