this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
484 points (83.6% liked)

Showerthoughts

29707 readers
1845 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    1. NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    2. Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    3. Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct-----

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] shrugal@lemm.ee 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

UBI and copyright are not mutually exclusive. Why wouldn't artists want to earn more on top for the work they do and the value they create, like every other profession?!

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

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

[–] firadin@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year 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.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] droans@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

patronage was common. you can't think that every artist got paid by someone who is rich though.

[–] shrugal@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year 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.

[–] rchive@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year 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.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

[–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

trademark has nothing to do with copyright. they're two sets of laws that developed a two different times for two different reasons.

[–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So, what does that have to do with the exclusive rights vs monopoly discussion? Both give you exclusive rights, doesn't matter that they come from two different sets of laws.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

trademark is a consumer protection. copyright is a fucking monopoly.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago

do you know how I know that you aren't a copyright lawyer?

[–] Girru00@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can you explain how government enforced monopolies intersects with the discussion here?

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago

that's what copyright and patent are. but you don't need to use the cudgel of the law to sell your work. in fact, most times, it's an irrelevant factor.