iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

I expect to get paid very little for it, and I would gladly be paid $0 for it if I could make it free to everyone. Unfortunately, it would cost about $15,000 to make it free to everyone, which, trust me, will make any royalties a drop in the bucket.

100

Agreed. But it’s inevitably gonna be an artificial line bc intellectual property is a legal invention.

Anyway, I hope that clarifies the reason for the distinction.

books or even just digital files because there is a legal restriction upon their reproduction and sale, a kind of artificial scarcity. The theory behind us, and trying to the US Constitution, was “to encourage the useful arts and sciences“ but in my view, it mostly just helps huge corporations.

352

Non-rivalrous. My having a copy of a text or a song does not deprive you of a copy. Especially with computers it’s trivially easy to make it and transmit as many copies as we want. To answer your question, copyright is a way to restrict circulation of non-rivalrous goods, increasing the cost of …+

Non-rivalrous goods include the air we breathe, radio, and national defense. I listening to the radio or benefiting from national defense does not prevent another person from enjoying the same good at the same time, like My sitting in a chair does. Intellectual property is … +

120

Thank you for this reasonable question. When a good is what economists call “rivalrous,” that means one person’s having it prevents another from having it. A hamburger is rivalrous, rice, but so is a chair. The chair doesn’t get consumed, but if I have and use it, you can’t. +

When I eat the Happy Meal, it's gone. Not so when I read a poem. In fact, if I make a copy and share it, I get to keep the original. That's an important difference between tangible and intellectual property.

100

Both. But almost always through the large corporations that restrict access to their work.

100

absolutely private. Sharing requires consent. 3. I think that ALL writers/artists should be *credited* for their work. Claiming you made something that was made by someone else is deeply wrong, but that’s not the same as copyright. THAT is real intellectual theft.

1. I recognize that current law gives writers/artists robust “protections,” and I respect those laws but consider them very harmful for artistic and intellectual cultures. 2. I think any work in progress, or anything a writer does not want to share publicly, should be protected and…

To the extent that I feel safe from getting sued by my own publishers, yes I do. If there’s anything I’ve written, including syllabi, that you or anyone else would like to read, for free, please don’t hesitate to ask. A few thoughts here:…

100

I’m definitely thinking about why it made people this angry! That will stick with me. Not all anger is righteous, but I’m thinking about it carefully. It’s really, truly not that I don’t want artists to make a living off their work. Quite the opposite: we can and should do so much better than..

That’s a key distinction. A unique piece like an oil painting or necklace is rivalrous—can and I think should be sold like a car or shirt. Grants and patronage might help artists making non-rivalrous works, like literature: get paid a stipend, and the whole world can enjoy your work. Just an idea.

100

You said “1500 years before the invention of capitalism,” which I dated to roughly 1500 CE, so 1500 years before that would put us around the first century CE, no?

000

I think art is a gift, and cultures thrive when it is shared widely, publicly, and freely. That's just my view. I'm surprised so many artists prefer to have their art kept away from non-customers...and prefer not to imagine alternatives to that choice.

100

I don't think charity is insulting, and I don't think all of the alternatives to copyright are charity. But sorry if this offends you! For me, the idea that for my writing to be "valued," it must be sealed away from anyone who doesn't pay some big corporation $$ for a copy...that's insulting.

310

Not if the artist received grants to make the art, or a stipend from a patronage relationship, or some other form of support not organized around fake scarcity produced by copyright law.

200

Of course! We should find better ways to support artists so that they do write books and make paintings. It's too hard to live as an artist or writer these days. Copyright is a very bad tool for accomplishing this.

100

Oh thanks! I thought I had missed a few.

000

I’m sorry we couldn’t have a real conversation. I care deeply about the thriving of art and artists, as do you. We disagree about means. Pity we couldn’t actually discuss that! I’m deleting my other posts because I don’t enjoy the harassment and name-calling. It’s cruel and not constructive. Oh well

410

I teach for a living. If you’re saying that I wouldn’t have to teach if I could write better, ok ouch but fair. That said, I don’t think all good art sells well, nor is all profitable art good. Maybe they shouldn’t be linked?

330

An attack on copyright is an attack on the corporate capitalists who designed and are the primary beneficiaries of it, not an attack on artists. My primary concern is for the flourishing of arts and artists. Look around: the copyright system does not accomplish that!

120

If they were well paid, great! I think we should find ways of paying poets LOADS of money. But copyright, in my view, does not help with that.

I find it genuinely interesting that first-century Irish bards were mainly expected to perform original material and not folk songs. In this they differed from their counterparts on the continent, right? Folk song and oral tradition seem like such core parts of western cultures in that era…

I’m not a specialist, as I said. And I’m eager to learn. Nothing “sort of” like copyright existed in first-century Ireland. The first written laws of any kind were almost 500 years off, the printing press of course was not around until the late 15th century. That said…

Maybe the government should pay them to make art.

Is money the only way to value something? Maybe we should fight capitalism by insisting that not all things are reducible to monetary value, that some kinds of value are not expressed in dollars.

410

To say that art should be free does not mean artists shouldn’t get paid. The public works of Michelangelo are free and always have been. That doesn’t mean he didn’t get paid. Copyright is not the only way.

410

Exactly! Copyright is what enables people like RK Rowling to sue fans for writing fanfic. That kind of free art/gift economy is precisely what I value.

Taking away a tree, like eating a meal, is different because these are rivalrous goods. Experiences like a walk in the woods or in a museum are not rivalrous. “Who owns the woods?” is a question that echoes down the history of private property. The answer used to be everyone: “the commons.” No more.

No, nothing like modern copyright existed. The very idea of intellectual property was not present. I’m not a specialist in pre-Christian bardic practices, but I’m fairly confident they often reworked folk texts, in addition to more improvisatory compositions.

Capitalism is a miserable condition. I imagine we agree about that. My view is that we should have as many meaningful experiences without money as possible. Should I have to pay for a walk in the woods? Anybody can have my art/writing for free, just ask. I’m trying to loosen capital’s grip on art.

120

Did copyright get them paid like that?

Ok, I left this one post up because I thought it was pretty clear, but I’ll take it down. I’ve been called “shit stain,” “human trash,” “child” and other things for a view that I believe helps art and artists. That’s not what I’m here to experience. I’m disappointed and a little hurt, but oh well.

Do you really think that’s what I’m saying?

300

When I posted the link, it was open-access, but I guess that was temporary. Let me know if you’d actually like a copy for free, and I’ll gladly send you one. I’m not going to post a free link because I don’t want Cambridge press to sue me, but I’ve made clear where to find it.

000

Thank you for this exchange. I’m deleting all of my posts because I’m not ok with the harassment that I’m receiving. Not sure if this will survive, but maybe you’ll see it. I know we don’t agree, but you’re among a minority who have exchanged ideas with me instead of calling me vile names. Thanks.

000

When you eat a sandwich, the sandwich is gone. Not so with a book or painting. Enjoying it or copying it does not deprive others of anything.

200

When you eat a meal, the food is gone. Not so with a book, movie, etc. Making a copy generally does not destroy the source.

520

It’s available for free on my personal website, but you’re right: bullshit that they charge for access. I certainly don’t get any of that money.

100

These systems are changing our style even when we make a point of *not* using them. (From Ethan Mollick's substack.)