Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Whoa whoa whoa - Anti-DRM means Anti-Artistic Intent?
This is in regards to the latest show (7-31-2006)
You say that information can be lost and destroyed by the people who created it and give George Lucas's attitude towards Star Wars as an example of it. This doesn't come down to DRM, this comes down to artistic intent. If it's the will of the artist to destroy what he has created, that should be his right. Sure, I don't necessary agree with Lucas's choices, but I support his right to make those choices.
You guys make way too many judgment calls on the art community over how it should be governed and run without actively participating in that community. Yet, you're very stern on your position that no one should govern computing and geek culture except for those who are experts on the subject (I submit your opinion on Alaskan Senator Stevens and Net Neutrality for evidence).
I mostly agree with you on your thoughts of DRM, but once that begins to take away the rights of the artist, that's when I have to rise against you.
You say that information can be lost and destroyed by the people who created it and give George Lucas's attitude towards Star Wars as an example of it. This doesn't come down to DRM, this comes down to artistic intent. If it's the will of the artist to destroy what he has created, that should be his right. Sure, I don't necessary agree with Lucas's choices, but I support his right to make those choices.
You guys make way too many judgment calls on the art community over how it should be governed and run without actively participating in that community. Yet, you're very stern on your position that no one should govern computing and geek culture except for those who are experts on the subject (I submit your opinion on Alaskan Senator Stevens and Net Neutrality for evidence).
I mostly agree with you on your thoughts of DRM, but once that begins to take away the rights of the artist, that's when I have to rise against you.
Comments
DRM enters the equation because it is basically a remote controlled bomb when attached to works of art. It makes it not only legally, but technologically difficult to remix, edit, or even view works of digital art. Works of art that only exist in DRM'd formats do not have the necessary longevity to make it to the public domain. Nowadays we can watch very old movies and TV shows because people have been able to copy them to DVD. Imagine if 100 years from now people are unable to view the works of art created today without acquiring 100 year old computers and 100 year old software. It's really just a disaster waiting to happen.
So creation is good. Remixing is good. Destruction is bad. Not sharing is bad.
Say I'd bought the original Star Wars on Laserdisc. Legitimately. Then, George has his hissy fit and wants to change it. With DRM, he can alter or destroy my own copy that I purchased legally whenever he wants. Effectively, he could change the movie that I'd already purchased and was sitting in my own home at any time without my consent. I'd have no recourse, and now I'd have spent money on something other than what I now own.
Are you saying that I shouldn't own the copy of a movie I purchase? If a chair manufacturer suddenly decides that his red chairs should actually be green, does he have the right to come into my house and paint them? How is my copy of a movie any different?
But artists SHOULDN'T govern the technology they want to use to enforce their own community rules. Just because they want DRM doesn't mean the technologists should allow them to use this technology. The technology itself is a travesty.
For instance, D.W. Griffith changed his masterpiece, "Birth of a Nation," several times after its first release. The cut we have today isn't the original cut at all, and it was Griffith's artistic choice to essentially destroy and recreate his own art. As much as I would love to see the original cut, I must respect the will of the artist.
Vincent van Gogh burned away a lot of his paintings while he was alive for heat. He destroyed a large percentage of his work that, for fans of Gogh, cringe at the mere thought of. But he still had the right to do so.
Just because the technology exists to duplicate something a million times, doesn't mean the artist's right to destroy his own work should be trampled on. Obviously, anything already sold should never be forced to be given back - but things that were once available shouldn't be forced to always be available
Less than 100 years from now all current art will theoretically belong to everybody. This is part of the reason why the Library of Congress exists. If you destroy a work of art in a way that prevents it from entering the public domain, then you are essentially stealing from the people of the future. Imagine a person in the future with a painting on the wall. Destroying that painting now I see as identical to breaking into their house in the future and disintegrating the painting. I say disintegrating because it is one hundread years in the future, where they have disintegrating ray guns.
DRM is a technology which makes destruction of digital art the default. That is a crime against humanity. Tragedy of the commons strikes again.
And legally, once you create something, no matter if you publish it, burn it, or lock it up, it becomes the property of the public after a set time, and is protected by copyright. George Lucas isn't required to keep making the old versions of his films available. I, however, have the full legal right to publish any and all of his works the moment they enter the public domain. Every American citizen has the right to copy infinitely everything any artist has ever done the moment it hits the public domain. Not even legally does an artist have the power or the right to control how his works are used or viewed outside of a limited span of time.
Copyright law as it stands protects both artists and viewers. It ensures that an artist has a limited, timed monopoly on their art, but it also ensures that they will eventually lose all power over that art. If you agree with the protections you enjoy under copyright law, then you have to accept the fact that you will lose all of those protections some day.
An artist's right to be a selfish revisionist disappears at the end of a copyright's term. No matter how he feels, his art can be used in any way by anyone after this point. This is an integral part of copyright law.
An artist has the right to destroy his own copies of his work. Legally, he has no right to in any way interfere with how others will eventually view it, or to destroy existing copies owned by others. They can trade, show, view, and sell those existing copies at will, and once they enter the public domain, they can make copies of those copies forever.
The only way an artist can ever have this power is to never share his art with anyone, and to destroy it before his death. Even then, if someone sneaks into his house and copies it all, those copies become legal and free when the copyright expires.
There is not and has never been a protection for "artistic intent" in US copyright law.
I recall a story that was told to me about a number of wax sculptures made by an artist. The intent was that over time, these sculptures would slowly melt until they were completely gone. As soon as the artist died, the sculptures were immediately cast in bronze to preserve them. In this way, public entitlement destroyed all intent of the artist. If the destruction is part of the art, why should that be disallowed? (I know the same kind of thing was done with Degas "Little Dancer of Fourteen Years" but I don't believe the intent was to have it slowly melt)
And while I'm thinking about it - what about art that isn't material? Performance art and plays are gone as soon as they're performed. Are you saying that it is the duty of the public to make sure that there is always a recorded copy of all live art to preserve it? I wasn't alive during Shakespeare's time, so by not having a copy of that performance, has he stolen from future audiences the ability to experience that art of the opening night of Hamlet or MacBeth?
And if you want to talk about right and wrong as opposed to legal and illegal, there is no way you are in the right. Is it right to bring joy to millions of people only to take it away? That's like saying it's ok for a clown to punch you in the face. He made you laugh, so he's allowed to take away that joy. I don't think so. A comedian told you a joke, now he's allowed to erase it from your memory. Gimme a break.
All artwork that is created by default belongs to everone. Copyright law allows the creator of that work some rights pertaining to that work for a limited time in order to create incentive and to benefit the common good. It says that, in so many words, right in the constitution of the USA. If destroying a work beloved by all is for the greater good, then fuck all.
I'm not saying I support DRM, when did I say that? I'm just saying it's not a black and white, clear cut issue. I'm not going to outright oppose DRM if "artists don't have complete control over their work while they own it" is attached to it. I'm not talking about censorship at all, I'm not even sure how that relates to anything I'm talking about except for you wanting to spin my words into something I never said. Although I do believe in self-censorship and an artist's right to destroy his own work (that he didn't already sell) should be an obvious right of the artist.
I also noticed how I've provided you with examples and arguments and you have chosen to ignore all of them. What's the point in having a debate if you're just going to make up what you want to believe is my side of it?
To me, anyone who would be so selfish as to create something wonderful and then deny it to the world arbitrarily is acting contrary to the good of mankind and, in general, is an asshat.
Now, I'm not saying they shouldn't have the ability or right to profit from their works. I'm not saying they shouldn't have the ability to control for a limited time the scope or use of their work. I'm not saying all art should be free to anyone always. I'm not saying that an artist must keep every revision of a script he's working on. I hope and expect that artists will be able to derive sustenance and sometimes profit from their works.
Works that no one cares about or enjoys will be lost and forgotten, as no one will bother to preserve them. Works that are not recorded, written down, filmed, etc... will be lost as the memories of those who experienced them fade. Works that are never published will be lost as no one knows of their existence or value.
But works that are created, distributed, and enjoyed belong to the human race. They transcend the artist and his short life. It is the ultimate hubris to decide that the works you have created shall be denied to all of the future for no other reason than your own pride and ego. Noble men have the duty to preserve these works in any way they can for the benefit of all that will live.
Take me, for instance, I just recently made a short film. It was publicly aired and seen by quite a few people. Even though I like my short film, if I wanted to, I should be able to take the original negative, and burn it. I should be able to delete all of my render files and everything associated with it because I own all of it. I have no right to do that? I'm not saying I would ever do this, but it should be within my right to do so. So only the works that are popular deserve to enter the public domain and be preserved? That's like only saving the cute endangered species.
If the intent of the artist is ignored and outright refused to have any value, then are artists doomed to cater exclusively to the "viewer?"
But if another person has a copy of the film, and they feel that it is worth saving, then they have the right and, I would argue, the duty to preserve it.
The Marlowe example is silly. Knowing that Marlowe wrote something allows us to compare his works to others in the same time period, or to eachother. it gives us great perspective. If he wrote also about his own intent, then this itself joins the body of art.
Intent alone does not exist outside of the artist's head, and will disappear when he dies. The viewer is the only person who will ever interpret the piece. The viewer is the one who decides its worth. Long after the artist dies, the viewers are the only people in the world to whom the piece has meaning. We can't ask Homer why he wrote. We can't ask him what his intent was. We can only guess: it no longer exists.
Both intent and the art is valued highly by other artists. Especially because it gives great insight for why we make our own work. Learning about why certain art is created and the purpose that it served for the artist is great to reflect on why I make my own work. Intent is highly inspiring for those already inspired by the work.
Also, people have the right to be an asshole. You can yell at people, discriminate against homosexuals and obese people, shout obscenities in public parks, burn crosses and flags, tell embarrassing stories, and all sorts of other mean things. People have the right to destroy art just the same. It's sad, it should be fought, it should be subverted, but it's something people do. I feel that enlightened people strive against such things all the while respecting the rights of other people to do sad, scary, destructive, or dangerous things.
The intent only exists if it is documented, in which case it is art. You cannot know the intent from a work in and of itself.
I'm not saying artists should destroy their work and the vast majority do not - but I'm saying they should have the right to.
Surmised intent is just that: surmised. People can care about intent all they want, but it is not a quantity to be measured. It exists only as other works, or as explanatory portions of the same work. It is not an inherent property of the work itself.
Think of making art like building a public bridge. You design the bridge and put in the effort to create the physical bridge. You intend for people to drive across the bridge in cars. But people decide your bridge is better for bungie jumping. Is it ok for you to destroy the bridge? No, no it is not.