Rainbowstream is a full-featured Twitter client while krill merely displays tweets. Rainbowstream uses the Twitter API, krill parses Twitter's HTML and therefore requires no Twitter credentials at all.
There was art and there were artists long before copyright. Michelangelo, Mozart and Byron were anything but buskers. Public performances and patronage are time-tested, but nowadays artists have additional options like online fundraising and donations, as well as a far greater reach through social networks, amplifying the effect of all of the above.
However, it is true that even the most famous artists might have to get used to their art "merely" affording them a comfortable life, instead of making them obscenely wealthy like it does through license sales today.
All those artists had patrons, a high end form of busking for tips, and none had any power in that relationship at all.
It's never been easy for an artist to make a living, but taking rights away just makes it harder. An artist can give away their work now if they want. You are talking about removing the other options, and I don't see much upside that outweighs the downside. Only big capital really benefits.
It's also hypocritical for engineers, who have the potential to become obscenely wealthy, to criticize others for this while advocating labor busting policies. Do people actually want a world where only a tiny handful of technicians and supercapitalists have wealth? All I see here is elitism. This is not a progressive idea. Please stop promoting it as if it is.
As compared to the power that authors have in their relationship with publishers now?
At least the relation of an artist with their patron was on a one-on-one personal level; they could influence their patrons and convince them to have their way on an emotional level. Try that when you're paid by a corporation.
I predict a future of performing arts for writers as well. Roleplaying games show us that doing such thing is possible, and creative platforms for storytelling will allow artists to perform live experiences for an audience.
"Experience builder" may very well be the future of what we call "writers" now, and the media that will allow it already exists; in that media, it's not unreasonable to think that people will pay to have the experience tailored for them in real time, even if recorded copies of such experience are then instantly distributed for free to the world.
Well, if a publisher defaults on a contract with me, I have a legal remedy. I sell or lease my property interest in a piece of creative work in return for some valuable consideration, usually money. If the publisher fails to deliver I can ask a court to enforce the terms of the contract. Is it ideal, no. But I certainly prefer it to the feudal model you propose returning to.
I predict a future of performing arts for writers as well. Roleplaying games show us that doing such thing is possible, and creative platforms for storytelling will allow artists to perform live experiences for an audience.
If I wanted to do live performance then I would have pursued a career in theater. The existence of other possibilities does not unilaterally justify the unilateral abolition of one economic mechanism (copyright) so as to privilege consumer interests over those of producers. Perhaps you don't enjoy reading novels or consuming stories with fixed narratives (rather than interactive games), but lots of people do enjoy that, and there is a distinct skill in the construction and development of such narratives.
Would you go to a farmer and say 'the food you grow should be free for the taking to anyone passing your field, after all the earth is bountiful and you can simply grow more food in the future so ownership of food is inherently meaningless. If you are just farming for the money, you could always go and work in a coal mine instead.'
Copyright is not a tool created in the interest of producers, it's primarily in the interest of distributors.
Technology has changed for good; when almost everybody carries in their pocket a machine for creating perfect copies of any kind of information, it's basic economy that the value of a copy reduces to nothing. It's the world which has moved on, not a desire to inconvenience authors; legislation needs to reflect that change. The value of original creation is worth something, but forcing people to buy copies in order to sustain such original creation is a market inefficiency; better processes need to be found, which are more well adapted to the way people behave.
A more apt analogy to your farmer example would be if everybody would carry Star Trek matter replicators on them. The farmer would not have a right to send cops to tie the hands of everyone passing by one of their tomatoes, or near any copy of a copy of the tomatoes, so that the walker can't create a copy for their consumption and thus have no need of paying for the original.
No it isn't! The discussion here is about taking away the only asset that non-super-capitalists who work in the arts have, and that's the saleable property interest in the work we create.
The Internet has already taken that asset away. What we are talking is about super-capitalists trying to break the Internet to keep their old bussiness model working, instead of inventing new models on the new efficient distribution channel.
I believe a new model that worked on protecting attribution of the work rather than copy-rights would be more adequate to protect authors from having their work exploited by large publishers without giving anything away in return.
Engineers only have the ability to become obscenely wealthy through business, not really through being an engineer.
Artists can do the same. Both artists and engineers can become wealthy through this method if copyright didn't exist.
Also, the point the article is making is that the current system is the one in which "only big capital really benefits". I have not seen you make any counterpoints to this claim, just an assertion that it is in fact the opposite.
A labor union for non-fantastically-wealthy artists would be a wonderful thing. I wonder why the existing labels are empirically not such a thing. (I haven't thought about this at all, maybe you know?)
It seems like the relationship between music labels and artists is more abusive than that between, say, book publishers and authors, so this may not be inherent to the problem.
- https://www.debian.org/
- Click "Getting Debian"...
- https://www.debian.org/distrib/ (no signatures, no checksums, no "verify" link)
- Click "Download an installation image"...
- https://www.debian.org/distrib/netinst (no signatures, no checksums, no "verify" link)
- Click on my architecture, the ISO download starts
- The file is now on my machine and I have not seen the words "signature", "GPG", "checksum", or "verify" anywhere.
I eventually found https://www.debian.org/CD/verify using a Google search. It's safe to say there is room for improvement here.