beaterbar wrote:ugh... your views on art are so nauseating. IP is a 20th century concept invented by the media industry to ensure a flow of unearned profits to talentless corporate executives.
I think this shirt is genius, but sadly it should probably be rejected for being a woot reference/inside woot joke.
Your definition of genius colours your prior opinion quite well.
The fact of the matter is that Intellectual Property, used properly, undermines exactly what you note. It means that a greedy corporate exec cannot use my work simply because they have the publishing power. It means that, while the original creator of World Nom-ination is not remotely as "popular" as sekiyoku is (I wish I could say was, but no one should believe anyone cares she cheated, sadly), and not as powerful as woot, they were able to leverage the site to protect their creation. It's why Todd Goldman is so hounded by much smaller artists who created his products before he stole them and made a fortune off them.
If anything, it is the idea of fair use and copyright expiration which keeps the fat cats getting fatter. Sure, there are sketchy publishers and executives. It is for the artist to avoid a situation like the Beatles' catalog being stolen out from under them and sold to Michael Jackson, who outbid Paul McCartney for his own songs. That's an abuse outside of IP. But without it, we get this: We have publishers who put out a new version of Great Expectations every five years, because they don't have to pay for it. We have the New South edition of Huck Finn. In our lifetimes, we will see people able to re-record "What's Goin' On" or "Tommy" or "Revolver" in its entirety and profit off other people's work. We already see this in major labels when artists have signed their rights away. That's the artist's fault as much as the greed of the label. But every artist who ignores Glee or Idol's requests for talentless nitwits to re-record their songs, that is the power of owning your own work. Every artist who sues when a commercial snags their work against their will, that's what IP is meant to protect. It is ostensibly there for the artists' defense. Greedy people abuse everything. That does not put what they abuse at fault, but puts their greed and abuse at fault.
In the art world, consider the print. I can print Starry Night. It's not mine. How much money do you think I'd make selling prints of Van Gogh's most popular painting? How about prints of Michelangelo's work in the Sistine Chapel? The Last Supper? Should I be allowed to profit off masterworks that are not mine? So what's the extrapolation for the modern artist? When the copyright expires, who's got the claim to the artist's work: the family of the genius, or anyone with a quick, efficient and cheap printing press? What family could preserve their ancestor's legacy themselves against the super rich and super greedy? IP fights to give the artist the final say, even though the greed and power of corporations make that fight as impossible as possible.
I'm not 100% sure why anyone would be mad at Disney or George Lucas or people like that for refusing to let people use their characters. I refuse to let people use my computer. It's mine. IP is no different. Disney should be the one making mint off Disney forever. Its his work. And surely he has any number of sketchy bits in his empire's building, and surely he is a dramatic example of defending one's own IP, but who deserves Bambi more than the guy who made it? Suggesting otherwise suggests that the suggester (whoa, mindwarp) wants to profit off that product. Where is the honor in such a position that would make anyone care what such a person wanted?