Point me in the credits of Avatar! or About society as co-author of any work
In my first post on Habré “If you believe in copyright, then there is no God,” I touched upon the theme of higher powers when creating a work, and tried to compare them with the system of modern copyright. Today, to return to this issue, but in the context of the role of society in the creative process.
I will start with a significant question. Why wasn't Beethoven born in Africa? Why is none of the classics born on this beautiful continent? The most boring and correct answer is obvious - the development of classical music has passed to one continent to the north. But after all, it can be assumed that somewhere among the bushmen a baby was born with equally refined hearing and musical abilities, there was simply no harpsichord nearby. And you can also go further in this question. I think that by discarding the racist prejudices about the mental abilities of different races, we can easily formulate a concise answer to the question posed. Beethoven was not born in Africa because no one needed him there.
Each piece is created, because it is needed by society. If there were no War and Peace, someone else would have written it. Not literally, of course. A scene hated by many from school under an oak tree would have taken place somewhere in a birch grove, Natasha would not have been in Rostov, and could well have finally met in the pages of the novel with Lieutenant Rzhevsky. This place in the literature would be occupied by another work that would reveal the same problems. Otherwise, but I think it is very similar.
')
The author does not create because he really wants to make money. Art, in principle, is not the most successful form of earnings. Often the creative impulse is described as something that cannot be resisted. As a lawyer, I will not pretend to reveal the anatomy of this process. Immediately share my theory. I think the author projects the moods of the surrounding society, trying to solve current emotional or spiritual problems through art. In general, the author writes to read it. This is the most acute demand for creativity. To be in demand. In support of the fact that any author in his writings is responsible for the public inquiry, I can also cite this article: slovoidelo.narod.ru/neomarxism/sartre/what/iu.htm . Briefly, its essence comes down to what the writer writes for readers.
This means that without us, the Matrix, the Terminator, Forest Gampa and, alas, Burnt by the Sun, would not have happened to you 2.
In the comments to the post about porn "Copyright and a little bit of porn" the most interesting topic of evaluation of the usefulness of works for society was touched upon. I would venture to suggest the following analogy. The author simply offers his work to society as a step on which society can rely in its development, taking the next step. A step may or may not be suitable. It may simply not notice. The probability of a case is too great here. The step may also be too high, and then we say that the author was not born in due time. At the same time there may be many more steps in parallel that no one has used. They can not be better or worse. Past them just passed.
However, I did not write this post in order to formulate very obvious theses on creativity. In the end, I write about copyright. So, the modern model of copyright, built on the fact that the author has the right to prohibit distributing his work for another 70 years after his death, completely contradicts the essence and meaning of the work. The role of the author is indisputable, and the efforts that are required to create this or that creation cannot be underestimated. But, in my opinion, the main cause of the crisis in modern copyright is that this system contradicts the basic laws of creativity. The author creates for the society, and copyright desperately protects his ability to ban anyone from using his work.
If we say that any work is created for society and belongs to society, then we must consolidate the rights of society to use the work. This opens up freedom in securing the author’s right to remuneration. Those. instead of making the author’s right to be sacred, ban everything, the author’s right to receive money for him should be sacred. How and how much - I will try to describe in the following posts. I note only that if a third of the forces that are spent on the pursuit of the so-called. pirates, were spent on monetization, we would observe a different picture of copyright.
I will start with a significant question. Why wasn't Beethoven born in Africa? Why is none of the classics born on this beautiful continent? The most boring and correct answer is obvious - the development of classical music has passed to one continent to the north. But after all, it can be assumed that somewhere among the bushmen a baby was born with equally refined hearing and musical abilities, there was simply no harpsichord nearby. And you can also go further in this question. I think that by discarding the racist prejudices about the mental abilities of different races, we can easily formulate a concise answer to the question posed. Beethoven was not born in Africa because no one needed him there.
Each piece is created, because it is needed by society. If there were no War and Peace, someone else would have written it. Not literally, of course. A scene hated by many from school under an oak tree would have taken place somewhere in a birch grove, Natasha would not have been in Rostov, and could well have finally met in the pages of the novel with Lieutenant Rzhevsky. This place in the literature would be occupied by another work that would reveal the same problems. Otherwise, but I think it is very similar.
')
The author does not create because he really wants to make money. Art, in principle, is not the most successful form of earnings. Often the creative impulse is described as something that cannot be resisted. As a lawyer, I will not pretend to reveal the anatomy of this process. Immediately share my theory. I think the author projects the moods of the surrounding society, trying to solve current emotional or spiritual problems through art. In general, the author writes to read it. This is the most acute demand for creativity. To be in demand. In support of the fact that any author in his writings is responsible for the public inquiry, I can also cite this article: slovoidelo.narod.ru/neomarxism/sartre/what/iu.htm . Briefly, its essence comes down to what the writer writes for readers.
This means that without us, the Matrix, the Terminator, Forest Gampa and, alas, Burnt by the Sun, would not have happened to you 2.
In the comments to the post about porn "Copyright and a little bit of porn" the most interesting topic of evaluation of the usefulness of works for society was touched upon. I would venture to suggest the following analogy. The author simply offers his work to society as a step on which society can rely in its development, taking the next step. A step may or may not be suitable. It may simply not notice. The probability of a case is too great here. The step may also be too high, and then we say that the author was not born in due time. At the same time there may be many more steps in parallel that no one has used. They can not be better or worse. Past them just passed.
However, I did not write this post in order to formulate very obvious theses on creativity. In the end, I write about copyright. So, the modern model of copyright, built on the fact that the author has the right to prohibit distributing his work for another 70 years after his death, completely contradicts the essence and meaning of the work. The role of the author is indisputable, and the efforts that are required to create this or that creation cannot be underestimated. But, in my opinion, the main cause of the crisis in modern copyright is that this system contradicts the basic laws of creativity. The author creates for the society, and copyright desperately protects his ability to ban anyone from using his work.
If we say that any work is created for society and belongs to society, then we must consolidate the rights of society to use the work. This opens up freedom in securing the author’s right to remuneration. Those. instead of making the author’s right to be sacred, ban everything, the author’s right to receive money for him should be sacred. How and how much - I will try to describe in the following posts. I note only that if a third of the forces that are spent on the pursuit of the so-called. pirates, were spent on monetization, we would observe a different picture of copyright.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/232707/
All Articles