Hard News: The Casino
578 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 18 19 20 21 22 … 24 Newer→ Last
-
Agriculture. Massively important. Followed up by domestication of animals.
What I was looking at was cultural change. Fire at night meant leisure time for stories to be told. Writing meant that the stories became fixed, instead of being retold with cumulative subtle changes.
Agriculture and domestication were important to progress, but they are techniques. There's still a fierce chunk of hunter/gatherer in the human animal.
-
If the object was the only thing on sale (as you said), the fact that they were identical would mean that they should fetch the same price.
The object is the only thing on sale. What you may pay for it is influenced by a number of factors. Once purchased you can take the object and hide it away so that no-one can ever see it again. But you can't hide its context, ergo you don't "own" the context.
-
sometimes the social darwinist comes out.
I call it pragmatic realism. ;-)
-
What I was looking at was cultural change. Fire at night meant leisure time for stories to be told. Writing meant that the stories became fixed, instead of being retold with cumulative subtle changes.
Yeah, agriculture had even more of an impact there. Allowed people to settle - nuff said.
-
3410,
Mark,
I'm still having something of a problem with your "no one owes 'em a living" take on things. There's a hell of difference between "not giving someone a job" and "giving them a job but not paying them", isn't there?FWIW, I'm generally supportive of your position, I just don't know that that justification holds water.
That clear? ;)
-
I'm still having something of a problem with your "no one owes 'em a living" take on things. There's a hell of difference between "not giving someone a job" and "giving them a job but not paying them", isn't there?
Clear as mud ;-)
When I say, "no one owes them a living", I'm generally talking about artists, writers, creatives etc. and I mean there is no guaranteed living in that area of work. Let's call it a vocation because it's something that a) chooses you and b) you choose to embrace.
But statistically speaking, it's rarely a primary source of revenue for the practitioner, so it would be pretty silly to expect it to be. Most every actor, artist, writer I know has a another source of revenue that enables them to support their artistic endeavours. There are exceptions but, in the main, the arts has been a historically low paying existence, and often is classed as a hobby rather than real work (classed by non-artists, of course).
Whether or not you receive revenue for artistic endeavour depends on a number of things - surrounding cultural acceptance, actual talent, materials used - many variables go into the mix. Sometimes luck plays more of a factor than talent.
here's a hell of difference between "not giving someone a job" and "giving them a job but not paying them", isn't there?
I have no idea what you mean by that and struggle to see how you got it out of anything I said.
-
3410,
I have no idea what you mean by that and struggle to see how you got it out of anything I said.
Well, bear with me.
You say that no one owes artists a living. Ie, no one is obligated to buy art.
Whilst that is true, what you're advocating is not paying for art, but taking it anyway. That is not the same thing at all. Surely, if you decide to accept a product, then you are obligated to pay for it.
-
Yeah, agriculture had even more of an impact there. Allowed people to settle - nuff said.
I'm thinking that the nomads in the world might disagree with that, and those races that moved across various parts of the world from prehistory on. They took fire with them, you know, and stories.
-
What I was looking at was cultural change. Fire at night meant leisure time for stories to be told. Writing meant that the stories became fixed, instead of being retold with cumulative subtle changes.
Actually writing didn't help too much there. Too unreliable in the copying, there's lots of evidence of scribes changing things to the way they wanted them to be. Mass production started to firm up the fixed nature of writing.
Agriculture and domesticated animals are the greatest colonial weapon ever. Greater than diseases, military force, boats all put together. As much as Giovanni points out, it enabled them to stay put, it also created the greatest expansion of peoples ever. Agriculture and domestic animals created excess food which created population explosion which led to movement of people to new land, and also allowed specialisation of skills, leading to many of civilisation's early technological developments. End result: numerous local populations being assimilated or removed from the face of the earth entirely. All of which, it goes without saying, involved a bit of cultural change.
-
what you're advocating is not paying for art, but taking it anyway.
I dispute that. Where have I advocated it?
What I'm saying is that "it's going to happen - deal with it".
Surely, if you decide to accept a product, then you are obligated to pay for it
That's the ethical position I live by. I know there are others that don't, and there will always be so.
You seem to be saying that by describing a situation, I am therefore advocating it as a Good Thing. No.
-
Kyle and Givanni:
Whatever. Agree to disagree.
-
I'm thinking that the nomads in the world might disagree with that, and those races that moved across various parts of the world from prehistory on. They took fire with them, you know, and stories.
And the culture of non-agricultural societies remained essentially unchanged, for up to thousands of years, despite having fire and stories.
Agricultural societies produced ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, various empires across the middle east, ancient China, and the various civilisations that colonised the modern world.
No non-agricultural society developed a system of writing for example.
-
Let's not get fixated on the creators. Can I suggest that those "not owed a living" are more our cultural distribution, publishing and marketing industries in their traditional forms. I'm sure no one wants to see starving artists, musos, writers, etc. The need for their contribution continues, although it is threatened by economic and technological change and by those who resist it.
-
I agree agriculture was significant - and writing was useful for counting and remembering stores between seasons.
-
3410,
What I'm saying is that "it's going to happen - deal with it".
That's a cop out. Technically, artists who have their stuff pirated are victims of, shall we say, non-legality. Do you say that all crime victims should just "adapt or die" (rather than seek redress via the legal system?) If not, then why the difference?
[I want you to be right; that's why I'm testing.]
-
But statistically speaking, it's rarely a primary source of revenue for the practitioner, so it would be pretty silly to expect it to be. Most every actor, artist, writer I know has a another source of revenue that enables them to support their artistic endeavours. There are exceptions but, in the main, the arts has been a historically low paying existence, and often is classed as a hobby rather than real work (classed by non-artists, of course).
Not true for music though. It's been relatively easy for a musician, internationally speaking if not NZ, to drag a reasonable living out of their art, and, although much of that is from live work, traditionally performers signed to a big record company have also found themselves on a wage (as an advance against future income from the label). It's a part of the risk the label has often taken when investing in an artist.
-
Not true for music though. It's been relatively easy for a musician, internationally speaking if not NZ, to drag a reasonable living out of their art, and, although much of that is from live work, traditionally performers signed to a big record company have also found themselves on a wage (as an advance against future income from the label). It's a part of the risk the label has often taken when investing in an artist.
And yet many musicians still have day jobs to pay the rent. I agree that music has had it better, but it's still the exceptions that make it their primary living (when you look at all who play and sing for any sort of recompense) and the real exceptions that make a fortune.
-
I dispute that. Where have I advocated it?
What I'm saying is that "it's going to happen - deal with it".
And you were going so well!... :-)
I think the laissez-faire attitude, or the abdication of our responsability to look after content creators if you will, is in fact tantamount to advocating for it, but at the very least hardly innocent and non-ideological, and that you'd do well to both examine your language (we all keep going back to your pronouncements that "nobody is guaranteed a livelyhood" and "you must adapt or die" for a reason) at the same time as you rightly attack the maximalists for theirs ("theft", "piracy" and so forth).
Especially since, at the same time as you take the technologically deterministic view that the human behaviour is predetermined by these new tools of ours, you're also suggesting reducing the length of copyright terms. Anything else you'd like content creators to give up?
I must say, and it's very much a minor corollary, that I'm also unimpressed by this idea (historical, I know) that copyright protections are there to help artists make their next work. Were and I an artist, I'd be tempted to say "why don't you fuck off already, society? I've written/painted/set to music this thing you want and crave, but you're only willing to pay for it with the understanding I will give you some more?"
It seems a peculiar way of treating a valuable sector of society, in this mercantile society of ours. We bail out investment bankers, don't we?
Kyle and Givanni:
I don't recall negotiating alterations to my name, even on a non-commercial basis. :-)
-
But as you say about risk - that's what you take when you want to make the fortune. And sometimes it works and sometime you come home chastened and wiser, and move on to the next thing in your life.
-
I don't recall negotiating alterations to my name, even on a non-commercial basis. :-)
Apple-ogies, the elves borrowed my 'o' for a minute,
-
That's a cop out.
No, it's a description, and some advice. You can get all bent out of shape about it, or you can take it in your stride and change your practice to minimise it.
Technically, artists who have their stuff pirated are victims of, shall we say, non-legality.
No, say "illegal" - that's what it is.
Do you say that all crime victims should just "adapt or die" (rather than seek redress via the legal system?)
Of course not, but there are two things to consider: a) the nature of the illegality and b) the level of illegality.
<legal_stuff>While copyright infringement is illegal, it is not a crime, mmkay? This is why we have separate legislation. If copyright infringement was a crime, it would be in a section of the Crimes Act, which is the legal definition of what is regarded as a crime. Crimes are prosecuted by the state. Copyright infringement (at present) is prosecuted as a civil matter. Okay? There are exceptions, such as criminal prosecution for wholesale infringement, which is what the "Sione's Wedding" DVD pirates were charged under. But on the whole, civil, not criminal.</legal>
<philosophical>If you get assaulted, or someone steals your car, it's an isolated event. The legal process is constructed to deal with that. If you were being assaulted every 5 minutes, I'd probably advise you to move or get a gun, but the legal process would not be able to cope with all the investigations or prosecutions. Something would have to change.
Let's stipulate that the level of copyright infringement is high. Let's say there are 300 infringements an hour. How on earth do you prosecute that? As an individual, do you spend all your money and time trying to stop it, or do you change your business stratagy to minimise the impact? One path will cost and frustrate you, the other may lead to something.</philosophical>
If not, then why the difference?
What I'm saying here is that not all illegalities are created equal, and the strategies to deal with each are difficult. Don't try to equate crime with copyright infringement. It's not fair to crime or the real victims of it.
-
I'm not sure what this wall-pissing exercise in comparing technological advances is meant to achieve or signify. Nothing that is being said is quantified, and any quantifications would be highly disputable, firstly on the actual numbers but secondly on the relevance of the numbers.
I mean what constitutes a 'quantum leap' in technology? That it changes how people do things? Some extremely subtle changes can be considered highly profound. Some massive movements could be considered insignificant. Columbus set about a chain of events that led to a colossal exodus, but does that really make the discovery of America a quantum leap? Or the technology that led to it?
And does it really matter? No one is disputing that the electronic digital age is changing the world. The question is: Is it changing it in a way that is leading to making the world better for enough people to justify what is being lost? What practices will lead to the greatest good? None of these answers are settled, hence this debate.
A debate in which I'm sitting on the fence. It seems like an extremely hard debate to have, because the private practices of pirates are much like masturbation, or watching porn. They're things that, because they are repressed by society (rightly or wrongly), people find it extremely difficult to be honest about, and extremely hard to trust the motivations of others. Just as most people will deny looking at porn in public, so also I think most people believe that to be a general lie. As in, no particular person can be easily accused of being a porn watcher without starting an insoluble shit-fight, but a lot of people know a lot of people who have porn, so many of them, in fact, as to think that the practice, like masturbation, might be near universal (at least amongst men). No one can really know if it is, because few are open and honest about it, and if they are, they are derided as perverts, just as pirates are derided as thieves.
A particularly illuminating term from Marxist discourse comes to my mind - objective alienation. Enforcing copyright on yourself in the privacy of your own home is exactly that, the internalization of society's rules, whether or not society could even find out. Marxists tend to hate it when the see it, if it's in support of capitalism. In this particular case, it is in support of capitalism. Copyright is a capitalist institution. Socialists are more likely to think that all ideas belong to the state, or humanity (which they feel the socialist state is the perfect representative of).
I know it's pretty old-skool to talk about Marx, but I've long held that he's a pretty good source of analysis on capitalism (having coined the damned word), if a poor prophet of any decent alternative. Furthermore, his criticisms of capitalism apply in spades to this particular debate.
-
And yet many musicians still have day jobs to pay the rent. I agree that music has had it better, but it's still the exceptions that make it their primary living (when you look at all who play and sing for any sort of recompense) and the real exceptions that make a fortune.
If a musician decides to be a working musician to support their composition or recording work I'd argue that it's relatively easy (outside NZ, but often even within) to survive using your craft. You may not always be able to play the music you've created as a songwriter but a living is doable and thousands of musicians do it nightly even in NZ.
And I'm not talking just playing covers.
I'd also argue that in NZ the reason why so many need a day job, not to put too fine a point on it, is being slightly too precious about their art, if you will, and plain laziness. NZ bands are notorious for playing irregularly and then complaining that there is no money in it.
-
I think the laissez-faire attitude, or the abdication of our responsability to look after content creators if you will, is in fact tantamount to advocating for it, but at the very least hardly innocent and non-ideological, and that you'd do well to both examine your language (we all keep going back to your pronouncements that "nobody is guaranteed a livelyhood" and "you must adapt or die" for a reason) at the same time as you rightly attack the maximalists for theirs ("theft", "piracy" and so forth).
You read me as you want to, Giovanni.
No one is guaranteed a livelihood in any endeavour that is not waged employment. That's part of being your own boss, taking that risk and owning whatever rewards come from it. I'm (more or less) my own boss because of the freedom it gives me to do things that an employer might frown upon. Like art, for one (although PAS seems to leave me little time for that ;-)
But in black and white, I believe that no-one should be paid simply because they create art. I believe that, not from some free-market ideological position (which I definitely don't have) but because I believe the quality of work would diminish under a subsidy. Subsidies are generally, given out at a blanket rate, to enable otherwise uneconomic activities to exist. The way these subsidies are allocated are on the basis of either some scale of worthiness, or some scale of outputs.
Look at the high performance sports programme. It picked the worthiest candidates, but its own criteria, and focussed the resources on them. By and large, they haven't delivered. And the resources have been denied to those further down the pecking order.
If the criteria were based around the number of outputs, there is potential for quality to drop, in order to meet your quota. Not good either.
"Adapt or die" is dead accurate. It's not condemning anyone or abandoning them - it's simple advice. The world has changed and, if you don't, you will be left behind. Old business models are failing, you need new ones. Why do you have a problem with this, which I believe to be self-evident?
Especially since, at the same time as you take the technologically deterministic view that the human behaviour is predetermined by these new tools of ours, you're also suggesting reducing the length of copyright terms. Anything else you'd like content creators to give up?
For the last 40 years, copyright terms have been extended, and extended, and extended. Not because artists asked for it, but because the mouse was about to emerge from its private hole. I'd like a return to the status quo of around 1960. I'd see that as a good start.
But it's not enough. I'd say to you that the world has changed. Copyright law was initially designed to regulate publisher to publisher conflicts. Now, everyone on the Internet is able to publish and republish. Technology now allows anyone to infringe, where once you needed a solid investment in plant. The game has changed and laws must change to reflect that.
I must say, and it's very much a minor corollary, that I'm also unimpressed by this idea (historical, I know) that copyright protections are there to help artists make their next work.
Oh, you're disappointed. I know plenty of artists who'd be pleased to have anything to finance their next work.
Were and I an artist, I'd be tempted to say "why don't you fuck off already, society? I've written/painted/set to music this thing you want and crave, but you're only willing to pay for it with the understanding I will give you some more?"
See, there's that emotive stuff again. As you're self-admittedly) not an artist, I do wonder why you get so wound up over this, but never mind. I've written before about why this is. If you haven't heard it yet, you're not going to, so I won't waste our time.
It seems a peculiar way of treating a valuable sector of society, in this mercantile society of ours. We bail out investment bankers, don't we?
Wouldn't have happened if I was King.
-
3410,
Technically, artists who have their stuff pirated are victims of, shall we say, non-legality.
No, say "illegal" - that's what it is.I'll say what I like, thanks.
While copyright infringement is illegal, it is not a crime, mmkay?
Did I say it was? Sheesh . Too busy now to compose a cogent reply, I'm afraid. I'm out. Have a good weekend.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.