[Upd-discuss] software/intellectual property, portraits and hollywood

[Mashilamani Sambasivam]

I agree that the issue is not specifically about
copyright, patent etc. Copyright, patents etc
are just instruments by which talented people
who possess the imagination are made greedy.

For example, when a talented artist paints
and sells his painting, he is being encouraged
to get money way beyond the labour he put into it.
I think it is all based on 'there is a constant 
amount of money in the economy' and that when
you are greedy someone else gets affected by the 
greed.

Also, I want to make 1 more point and 2 questions:
1. Paintings need not be artifacts(old) 
(for example some artists paint and showcase
their painting in exhibitions for a living).
If paintings are artifacts like klimt, they
may have their own value. I should have
chosen another example.

2. The capitalists are NOT fools. 
There must be a reason why a painting is 
bought for so much money. I think it has
something to do with selling one's imagination
for way too much. Anyone have any idea on why
it is worth so much? ie. why is it so important
for the rich buyer? Dont tell me it
makes their home look good or it makes them
feel proud of their possession(proof:a lot
of paintings are bought by anonymous buyers,
so it CANNOT be about pride).

3. If I were an artist and I make a painting
which is worth a lot, then can I make a
digital photo of it and put it on the
internet and claim that whoever download
my digital copy and uses it(say as a screensaver)
has to pay me for it? Sounds ridiculous to
say that paintings are covered by copyright.
If they are material possessions why do you
even need copyright? There are only 2 ways
of copying that painting.One is digitally,
(that is ruled out since they are material)
and another is physically(I think that is
allowed. I remember seeing in BBC a man
who would paint for you a scream painting right
before your eyes and give it to you.)

Masi


--- Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

>     Does anyone else spot any pattern above?
> 
> The pattern is real, but associating it with the
> concept of
> "intellectual property" is an error.
> 
> Copyright law (one of the laws that some people
> label as "intellectual
> property") is relevant in your instances 1 and 3. 
> But it is
> irrelevant to instance 2.  What was sold was the
> physical object, the
> portrait--not a copyright (and I think that portrait
> is in the public
> domain by now, meaning it isn't copyrighted any
> more).
> 
> Therefore, what these examples show is that the
> issue is not
> specifically about copyright, or the other
> "intellectual property"
> laws.  It is a broader issue: that the system
> typically favors those
> who have more power--and that usually doesn't
> include artists or
> writers.
> 
> Copyright does contribute to this effect, and so (in
> other areas) do
> patents.  But the effect is not limited to them.
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com