Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine
Well, not all research is done by universities. There are many different research institutes, bureaus, etc. In many cases, research is an actual product.
However, as soon as their findings become public, anyone is free to cite their work, and include their findings in new papers.
|
If I'm not mistaken their findings become public when they submit them to research journals or something similar for publication. They are, from the very beginning, allowing their product to enter the public domain. I'm not knowledgable in how exactly research institutes go about getting money, but I suppose they're given grants or private funding to explore certain topics.
I feel that this again is apples and oranges since these research institutes are paid for their work beforehand, and they don't depend on the distribution of their findings for operating funds. This is in stark contrast to a porn producer who invests in a project with his own capital and expects a return on his investment. The money he will make is after, and not before his product is released.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine
I'd think that poets and their publishers hope to make a profit, especially if they're professionals.
As for the costs of production... I actually know poets who spend weeks on a single poem, so the costs in terms of labor of that would be huge. Plus, remember that quite a few bands manage to create fantastic music on shoestring budgets.
Marketing costs and the inflated costs of professional production, meanwhile, to me seem to simply point out that music is a more profitable industry than poetry. However, that doesn't exactly justify a greater degree of protection for the music.
|
So you mean to say that increased costs do not justify increased protection? I would have to disagree. The more money I spend on a product, the more I want to ensure that everyone who has it has paid for it. If this is not what you meant, please correct me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine
Moreover, music has alternative streams of income. Aside from recordings, there are shows, t-shirts, advertisements, etc.
|
These all follow from a recording company's or an individual musician's effort. If there is no capital or time spent on nurturing a band, then there are no shows, t-shirts, advertisements, and etc. I see these as further fruits of a producer's labor, and not excuses to diminish the value of their initial product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine
But even if you ignore all that, you can still look at something else: mixtapes. Making a mixtape for friends used to be quite common. Should that be considered "illegal violation of copyrights"? Should someone who makes a mixtape for his girlfriend be fined or thrown in prison?
|
Tricky tricky. Should that be considered "illegal violation of copyrights"? Yup. They're distributing a product that they don't have the legal right to. However, asking me if they should be thrown into prison is a misleading question since it draws comparisons to other crimes that are prison-worthy, and also because you and I both know that incarceration isn't the only way to punish a criminal or to dissuade potential offenders.
The distribution of mix-tapes may (and I'm not quite sure of it) lend to a recording company's favor by further promoting their product. If such is the case, then I doubt they'd want to try and press charges on every single person who has made and shared a mix-tape. However, I believe that comparing a mix-tape to the breadth and scope of content piracy nowadays just won't work. Where back in the good old days of casettes a single song was pirated from an album, you can now visit a torrent site and download, for free, an artist's entire catalogue.
This can be financially devastating, certainly does little to promote the production of newer "information", and only serves to mobilize production companies toward ludicrous lengths in stopping the hemorrhaging (such as urging harsher legislation for offenders).