🚀 go-pugleaf

"michael egan" <mde...@net-link.net> wrote:
<snip>

>A curious sort of theft, considering that the person it is copied
>or learned from still retains his copy.  Aren't people information
>systems?   Couldn't
>someone memorize the source code for a small program?

sure, AFTER the idea was originated somewhere else. If it were so easy
to create, no one would have to steal.

>  Is
>that an infringment, also?  Or does it only become one when it
>is written on paper, or in silicon?  And would it be theft of a
>car if one were to use machine parts, sheet metal, etc. to build
>a replica of a '97 Camaro?

It would be a theft of someone else's concepts and work, yes. It would
not be a theft of the materials.
 
>> Without protection of copyright, no author or artist in software,
>> literature, or other media, would be able to make a living from their
>> work.

>And this is a valid point - it would be very difficult.  However,
>99% of writers, artists, musicians do not make a living
>at it anyway.

Horseshit. You haven't got a clue as to what you're talking about.
Just because someone CLAIMS to be an artist, that doesn't mean they're
worth a shit. If artists, musicians and writers didn't make a living
at it, then you WOULDN'T be watching T.V. singing along to the tunes
on the radio, going to the movies, or buying a damned thing that you'd
seen in an ad, because musicians, artists and writers are ALL OVER
that shit. You don't need a big name to be able to make a living as an
artist. You just need talent and willingness to work.

>Therefore, if you wish these activities to
>> proceed, society must provide a way for people to make a living at
>> them.  Hence copyrights, patents, etc.

>But society does not provide a way for 99% of the creative
>people to make a living at it.  There's a lot of
>tremendous talent out there that doesn't get hired.

There are any number of people who call themselves "artists" who never
lift a fucking finger to actually try to work at their jobs. Counter
these whiners-with-no-people-skills with the hundreds of thousands of
working artists/musicians/writers who actually DO make a living every
single day writing for magazines, pulp fiction, movies and t.v.,
newspapers, or artists who work in the commercial field, movies and
television, galleries, giftshops and travelling arts and crafts fairs.
Who do you think makes all that kitsch that you see in tourist traps?
Artists, believe it or not...ones that were able to see that working
is better than whining. Some of the best artists I know spent years
working as commercial artists in order to be able to finally work in
as fine artists. But they were artists all along. They simply changed
the market that they wished to approach.

>However, I would ask this.  How much money did Emily Dickenson
>want to make from her poetry?  And how many poets, not
>counting money earned from teaching as professors, actually
>make their living from poetry?

I don't make a "living" from it, but I do make an income from selling
books/ poetry competitions/ invited readings. So do many others. It's
not the goal to starve, man. The problem is that poetry is not a real
desirable commodity in our current society. There was a time when a
poet COULD make a living and maybe there will be again. 

>Answers - none and hardly any.  When it come to the artistic
>impulse, money is often the last thought of the artist, and
>certainly cannot be the first.

Wrong. Artists don't make crap to look at. They make it for OTHER
people to look at. "Can I sell this?" is OFTEN the first thought in an
artist's mind. They also separate their "sellable" items from stuff
that is made purely for the sake of making it. Even with that, you
hope that someone will come along and see what you saw and BUY the
damned thing. 


Tarla
***Tarla Star***
"If the Pope pushed over Howdy Doody in the woods and there was
no one around but one hand clapping, would Rose Kennedy get 
bear shit on her black dress?  I think I've made my point."
--Thaddeus N. Gunn