So then I'm free to re-distribute the unaltered version of Star Wars? It hasn't been destroyed, despite his intent. I have my own copy. When that work enters the public domain, I'll have the right to distribute it.
Should George Lucas have the right to prevent me from distributing the work he wants destroyed once it enters the public domain?
So what if the original episode 4 were only distributed digitally with DRM? George Lucas would have had the ability to erase that work from the face of the earth before or after it enters the public domain.
No, he shouldn't - that's completely within your right once the copyright expires.
Hence, the only art that can be destroyed is art that no one cares about or art that was never released into the hands of the people. Once something is given to the public in any recordable form, it can never be taken away, and the artist eventually loses all control regardless of his intent or revision.
My only point in this entire thread has been an artist has the right to destroy his own work. Many sub-debates have sprouted from that, but my main point is that an artist can destroy his own work. George Lucas can destroy his original trilogy without providing anything else if he doesn't want to. People can distribute the original ones once the copyright expires from their own copies of it, but Lucas has complete ownership over the high quality negatives and may destroy them at will. Sure, I'd prefer that we have the highest quality versions of the original movies, but that shouldn't be my place to demand such a thing.
So what if the original episode 4 were only distributed digitally with DRM? George Lucas would have had the ability to erase that work from the face of the earth before or after it enters the public domain.
What if it was only showed in theaters and never distributed? It'd end up being the same result.
I submit that destroying the masters of a released and well-known work is an evil, spiteful act. I lose any and all respect for a person who would do such a thing. If I had had the power, I would have stolen the masters before they were destroyed. George Lucas is an asshat.
Artists who destroy published works do a grave disservice to mankind.
I submit that destroying yourself is the same thing. I believe that suicide is a person's right, although I don't necessary advocate it.
As much as I am for freedom I do not think you should have a right to kill yourself. Even if everyone on earth really hated you, and everybody would only be made happier by your death, killing yourself is still harmful to society. The opportunity cost of even one human life is greater than the loss of any work of art. When a person dies you not only lose them, but everything they would have done had they lived. In the grand scheme of the universe, that is nothing, but what isn't? I believe that we should prevent people from killing themselves and do something with them that will recoup some of that lost opportunity. The benefit of a living human being is far greater than the cost of the food, water, shelter, counseling and whatever else is needed to keep them from killing anyone.
So if I'm going to say that someone shouldn't be able to destroy themselves, I'm definitely not going to say that someone should be able to destroy art they have created. Whether copyright were to legally last a million years or one second does not matter. If DaVinci wants to change the Mona Lisa, he should not be permitted to do so. If he does so anyway, he should be punished. People in this country sue each other for "emotional distress" all the time. I'm very much against the litigious nature of our society, but in my perfect world the Star Wars fans should be able to file, and win, a class action suit against Lucas for the sum of the real damage he has done by destroying art.
We put people in jail for stealing a single car from a single person. Yet when someone steals a work of art from entire world we defend them? I think not.
What, Scott, about people who are terminally ill, in pain, and wish to die peacefully? Their opportunity cost is low, as they will not be able to contribute meaningfully, and furthermore the cost of maintaining their lives is significant.
Obviously, a debate about suicide would just get us sidetracked. But I wonder how this lines up with your belief of ultimate freedoms.
We put people in jail for stealing a single car from a single person. Yet when someone steals a work of art from entire world we defend them? I think not.
Lucas is hardly stealing anything, afterall, the memory of seeing it is still in the people's minds. He can't erase that memory. You might as well prosecuate every artist who decides to change careers because of all the future art he has selfishly stolen from generations to come.
What, Scott, about people who are terminally ill, in pain, and wish to die peacefully? Their opportunity cost is low, as they will not be able to contribute meaningfully, and furthermore the cost of maintaining their lives is significant.
It is fine for those people to commit suicide because of the reasons you just stated. I actually just thought of that on the way home.
What, Scott, about people who are terminally ill, in pain, and wish to die peacefully? Their opportunity cost is low, as they will not be able to contribute meaningfully, and furthermore the cost of maintaining their lives is significant.
It is fine for those people to commit suicide because of the reasons you just stated. I actually just thought of that on the way home.
We should probably start a separate thread about this, because I don't want to sidetrack your art debate. However, why do you get to draw the line deliniating which reasons are acceptable and which aren't? What if someone is literally just 100% unhappy being alive and cannot rectify the situation by any means? Should you force this person to live a miserable existence? I contend that no life is better than a miserable one, but that's a discussion for another thread.
The only comment I'd like to make as far as art goes is the notion of "intent." From past arguments, I generally get the sense that Rym and Scott think that intent is meaningless in any situation, and I do disagree. In art specifically, it's nigh impossible to extract the author's absolute intent, for a number reasons; for starters, an artist might create a piece with multiple intents, or it may be subconcious, or the piece may be too obfuscated to draw any particular intent. However, talking about surmised intent in a piece is one of the greatest ways to enjoy art. The act of pulling apart a piece and trying to glean what the author wanted to accomplish, or what he might not have known he wanted to accomplish, and what he actually did accomplish, makes for an interesting intellectual exercise. The whole point of art is expression, and it can often express an intent the author may not have conciously known; however, attempting to extract intent from the piece can lead to a greater understanding of what, if anything, the piece is trying to say, and the intent with which it is said can matter greatly and ultimately affect the final feel of the piece. This is also why people have varied reactions to art; they glean different intents, and thus wind up with a different overall view of the piece.
You know, you can make threads. If you want to discuss suicide, have at it. As for intent, we're not saying that it's not interesting to think about. And we're not saying that thinking about it can't effect the way a work is experienced. We are saying that the intent of a creator should hold no weight in what actually occurs. If someone makes a mural, and they intend for it to burn down, you probably shouldn't let them do that. Artists shouldn't automatically be able to do whatever they want to what is, or will be, public property just because they are artists.
Scott, everytime you bring up a "but what about this" example - it's almost always dealing with things that would have been sold to someone else and therefore the artist can't touch it - once again, I've said that since the beginning. A chair, a bridge, a mural - these are all things that an artist has usually already sold. If they make a mural for themselves whether it be on their property or on the side of a building that they own - they should be allowed to do anything do it, one thing is destroy it.
So let me ask you, can anyone ever make a piece of art that is supposed to slowly destroy? As in the case of the wax sculptures that I talked about earlier?
Sure you can make a work of art like that. If nobody cares about the work, or those who do care about it also want it to slowly destroy, then that will be what comes to pass. However, if people enjoy the work in its un-destroyed form they can and will preserve it somehow.
Also for the sake of argument a work of art that is destroyed instantly is no different than one that is destroyed slowly. Let's say an artist were to make a painting that disintegrates after 5 days. Many many people come to see this painting and enjoy its beauty. Then five days later, as intended by the artist, it turns to dust. One word, asshat.
There's this great scene in "The Fountainhead" where the government has perverted Howard Roark's building into an abomination. He blows it up. Now that's artistic control. I submit to you that if George Lucas wanted to burn every copy of Star Wars: his, yours and mine, Ayn Rand would help him get the gasoline (if she weren't dead).
Also for the sake of argument a work of art that is destroyed instantly is no different than one that is destroyed slowly. Let's say an artist were to make a painting that disintegrates after 5 days. Many many people come to see this painting and enjoy its beauty. Then five days later, as intended by the artist, it turns to dust. One word, asshat.
Not asshat, just someone who obviously likes to work in a fleeting medium. That's the same reason why I love theater. Does wanting to work in a medium that vanishes as soon as its created make me an asshat? A painting that disintegrates instantly doesn't seem that much different than performance art. It only exists in the minds of those who experienced it.
This is a culture gap - you guys are not artists and obviously arguing your ultimate role as a "viewer" - I'm a heavy advocate for the right's of the artist because I am one. This is the point I was making before - you guys make way too many judgment calls towards something that you don't actively participate in and yet you turn right around and judge others for assuming things about computing without being experts.
You know, now that I think about it, what about the culinary arts? Art made from food certainly has the intent of being destroyed. No one seems to have a problem with that!
If I could create a perfect copy of the best cheesecake ever made, and then give post that cheesecake online for everyone to eat, I would. It's a shame that not everyone gets to experience the finest moments in life. I would love to go back and see all the things I've seen live again. I don't, and I believe that Rym and Scott agree, think that the experience isn't refined by its fleetingness. A movie that is only seen by one person is no better than no movie at all. The point of art, the point of culture, is to establish a common mindset. To give people a frame of reference. There's a reason that geeks love quoting movies so much: The quote itself is hilarious, but more than that, the quote is a simple way to condense the whole scene. Maybe even the whole movie. All it takes is a single mention of the number 42 to set off memories of hilarity.
Furthermore, We, as computer people, see anything that can be represented digitally as being best represented as digitally. Digital is a perfect representation. There are no artefacts. There's no problems. It's perfect each time. You know what to expect, and you know others have had the same experience. We like digital.
Ahem:
What good is self expression without a backdrop of society to compare it against? Self is great, but it's the whole tapestry of society that is beautiful.
Either way, this conversation has been derailed. The point was, originally, which is more important: The way an artist wishes to display his work, or the way that society wishes to see it. There's value in both. In fact, current law is designed to deal with the value of both. For a fixed, though currently longer than necessary, period, the artist gets most control. However, once he distributes it in permanent forms, it should be the public's prerogative to keep it forever. Just as is. I'd even argue that the artist is a total asshole if he doesn't ever make it availible to the public domain in it's original form. However, if the artist never releases it, it's also his perogative.
The problem is when the artist releases something, and then retroactively decides that it's not his vision and tries to replace it. Lucas and Speilburg have both tried. Again: The Star Wars Laserdisc. Nobody, not even the people who bought it, would be able to see it now.
Furthermore: The artist isn't going to be the one who controls the keys. It will, instead, be the publising company. If, an old, stuffy, executive, decides that he doesn't like the the language in one scene, he can just remove that scene. Someone new takes over Lions Gate films, and is offended by the mockery of religion in Dogma, and suddenly it doesn't exist. Somebody is offended by an episode of Friends, and it's NEVER ACCESSIBLE AGAIN. Gone. Poof. Unrecoverable. That is what DRM allows.
The problem is when the artist releases something, and then retroactively decides that it's not his vision and tries to replace it. Lucas and Speilburg have both tried. Again: The Star Wars Laserdisc. Nobody, not even the people who bought it, would be able to see it now.
My point is that I'm not going to dive in head-first against DRM. It's hardly black and white. I'm tired of people supporting extremes. People still own copies of the original movies and Lucas and Spielberg can't change the copies that are owned by people. But they have the right to change whatever they want and re-release it, which they have done with guilt.
I use this quote by Paul Valery quite often: "A poem is never finished, only abandoned."
If you say that works of art are not allowed to be what they were intended to be - then you are putting limitations on that art. You are basically saying that artists have a limited palette in which to work with and if you really want to go extreme, you are no different than when the communists tried to do the exact same thing during the beginning of cinema.
There should be absolutely no restrictions on the creation of art. Destruction is part of that. Sure, you feel like you're free to call people "asshats" but you're not even attempting to look at this issue from another point of view whereas I'm forced to look at it from both. I'm an artist and in such, I also depend on things entering the public domain. But I demand to have artist's rights supported while they have their limited copyright.
The problem with your "audience" point of view is that you're outright refusing to look at this issue in any form of art outside film, music, and written word. If you had any sort of grasp on art at all, you'd see that those barely scratch the surface of what art truly is.
The point of art is self expression. Art has always stood for a reflection of the artist. Just because you all like to think of a work of art as a stand alone entity, doesn't make it so. Sure, artists think about their own place in society, but it's a side thought to self expression.
Fine, DRM is terrible, but that's hardly what the base issue here is. I've been saying this for a while now. The base issue is that artists should have complete control over their own work while they own it. I'm not even sure how there can be a debate on this. The whole "stealing from the future" argument is juvenile and ridiculous.
Furthermore, preservation of the arts for public domain should not be a popularity contest. You assume that your precious audience has always been on the right side of determining value. Many, many works aren't discovered until years after the artist is dead, if they are so lucky at all. Even Citizen Kane, my favorite movie and considered among many high critics to be the greatest film ever made, was shunned from the public eye until after William Randolph Hearst was dead in the 1950s. You want me to put stock in the public when the public doesn't have a taste for value? I'm certainly not going to wait around for your vision of the public. Where no one can be bothered with culture or society until it gets released into the public domain and in which case we cross our fingers that someone will have the decency to preserve it.
If the public doesn't care about the artist, then the artist shouldn't be forced to care about his public. Simple as that. And if that's true, I don't have an ounce of guilt for "stealing from the future" when that future is 100 years away. A person's art should live and die by the hands of the artist since if it wasn't for the artist, it wouldn't exist anyway. Quite frankly, your disrespect for the artist's intent and will of the work sickens me.
And GauntletWizard, way too often do you confuse "art" with "pop culture." Very rarely do those two things ever line up. Your argument for not allowing artists to control their own work is basically broken down into your claim that geek culture likes to "quote things." Don't sit around and wait for culture to come to you - artists are already at the mercy of their audiences, and I think it's terrible.
Fine, DRM is terrible, but that's hardly what the base issue here is. I've been saying this for a while now. The base issue is that artist's should have complete control over their own work while they own it.
The basic underlying problem with your stance is that it is technically and physically impossible. Unless an artist chooses to never release their works to anyone, it is utterly impossible to maintain that level of control for the vast majority of media that exist. DRM isn't just a bad idea as a theoretical base: it's technologically impossible to enforce, for the data it attempts to protect must always result in a viewable, and thus copyable, manifestation at some point.
The basic underlying problem with your stance is that it is technically and physically impossible. Unless an artist chooses to never release their works to anyone, it is utterly impossible to maintain that level of control for the vast majority of media that exist.
This is only my stance when you choose to ignore the fact that I'm not talking about art that the artist sold. How many times have I said that now? At least five.
Then why are you arguing? Art that the artist hasn't sold or displayed doesn't really exist as far as the universe, people, or society are concerned. No one cares about it but the artist, since no one knows or cares it exists. DRM, therefore, has nothing to do with it, and this art needs no protection.
I must be insane for jumping in on this discussion this late in game... but's here's a hypothetical:
An artist, let's call him Woodsy McSculptor, has bought a plot of land in Washington, D.C. next to The Mall. He bought this plot of land so he could erect a beautiful piece of work to be on public display, but only for one week.
The scuplture he makes is a perfect replica of Columbus' expedition, the 3 ships, and teh entire crew on board each ship hard at work, hoisting sails and what have you. Now, he makes them completey out of a special wood: Marken Cherry. The special thing about Marken Cherry is that it lasts forever, but can be destroyed in one and only one way. Marken Termites eat Marken Cherry wood, and ONLY eat this wood, so there is no chance that they will go onto other trees or homes.
So what Woodsy McSculptor does, is he has the plot of land inD.C. and builds his beautiful replica of the Columbu's ships. People travel from around the world to look at it, and admire it. It is praised as one of the greatest works of art in human history.
And then a week later, Woodsy McSculptor lets loose the Marken Termites to eat away at his work over the next 2 days. On the 3rd day, the scuplture is completely gone, and the plot of land he had bought looks exactly like it did before he bought it. The art is gone, just as Woodsy McSculptor wanted.
From what I can tell, Scott will hate Woodsy, and I think Brian will defend Woodsy. I'll admit it was sort of a jerkish thing to do. But, it was Woodsy's intention all along to destroy his work. He made sure it would be his own private property too, jsut to insure his plan could not be interfered with.
Personally, it was Woodsy's property the whole time, even if it was in public sight, and he had every right to go through with the scenario exactly as I told it. I hope my hypothetical has created a proper situation for everyone to express their views without confusion.
I've got photos of his work, since it was publicly viewable he can't stop me. Then, other sculptors will create exact copies of his work based on the photographs. We will put the work somewhere where termites can not get at it. Woodsy McSculptor may own a physical object that embodies the work of art he has created, and he may do with it what he wishes. However, the work of art itself is something far less tangible. DRM would allow Woodsy control over any and all copies of his work above and beyond those granted to him by copyright, thus giving him control over tangible objects not owned by himself. That is why DRM is bad.
It's fairly obvious that cases of a physical work of which copies cannot be made aren't really relevant, since there's no DRM involved. The only issue would be if Woodsy died before the termites finished. In that case, whoever legally executes his estate has the right to do whatever he wants. If he wanted to spray the thing with termite spray and preserve it, great. If not, we still have pictures of the work.
If a work is designed such that it inherently cannot be preserved, then documentation of it should be preserved instead. (A live recording of a performance, or a model each stage of decomposition, etc...) Unless the art inherently cannot be saved, either through its construction or ephemeral nature, then it should be saved. It is the destruction of this art that I cannot abide.
Comments
Should George Lucas have the right to prevent me from distributing the work he wants destroyed once it enters the public domain?
Artists who destroy published works do a grave disservice to mankind.
So if I'm going to say that someone shouldn't be able to destroy themselves, I'm definitely not going to say that someone should be able to destroy art they have created. Whether copyright were to legally last a million years or one second does not matter. If DaVinci wants to change the Mona Lisa, he should not be permitted to do so. If he does so anyway, he should be punished. People in this country sue each other for "emotional distress" all the time. I'm very much against the litigious nature of our society, but in my perfect world the Star Wars fans should be able to file, and win, a class action suit against Lucas for the sum of the real damage he has done by destroying art.
We put people in jail for stealing a single car from a single person. Yet when someone steals a work of art from entire world we defend them? I think not.
The only comment I'd like to make as far as art goes is the notion of "intent." From past arguments, I generally get the sense that Rym and Scott think that intent is meaningless in any situation, and I do disagree. In art specifically, it's nigh impossible to extract the author's absolute intent, for a number reasons; for starters, an artist might create a piece with multiple intents, or it may be subconcious, or the piece may be too obfuscated to draw any particular intent. However, talking about surmised intent in a piece is one of the greatest ways to enjoy art. The act of pulling apart a piece and trying to glean what the author wanted to accomplish, or what he might not have known he wanted to accomplish, and what he actually did accomplish, makes for an interesting intellectual exercise. The whole point of art is expression, and it can often express an intent the author may not have conciously known; however, attempting to extract intent from the piece can lead to a greater understanding of what, if anything, the piece is trying to say, and the intent with which it is said can matter greatly and ultimately affect the final feel of the piece. This is also why people have varied reactions to art; they glean different intents, and thus wind up with a different overall view of the piece.
So let me ask you, can anyone ever make a piece of art that is supposed to slowly destroy? As in the case of the wax sculptures that I talked about earlier?
Also for the sake of argument a work of art that is destroyed instantly is no different than one that is destroyed slowly. Let's say an artist were to make a painting that disintegrates after 5 days. Many many people come to see this painting and enjoy its beauty. Then five days later, as intended by the artist, it turns to dust. One word, asshat.
This is a culture gap - you guys are not artists and obviously arguing your ultimate role as a "viewer" - I'm a heavy advocate for the right's of the artist because I am one. This is the point I was making before - you guys make way too many judgment calls towards something that you don't actively participate in and yet you turn right around and judge others for assuming things about computing without being experts.
Edit: The intent can be argued to be the protection of the artist, or the destruction of the viewer.
Furthermore, We, as computer people, see anything that can be represented digitally as being best represented as digitally. Digital is a perfect representation. There are no artefacts. There's no problems. It's perfect each time. You know what to expect, and you know others have had the same experience. We like digital.
What good is self expression without a backdrop of society to compare it against? Self is great, but it's the whole tapestry of society that is beautiful.
Either way, this conversation has been derailed. The point was, originally, which is more important: The way an artist wishes to display his work, or the way that society wishes to see it. There's value in both. In fact, current law is designed to deal with the value of both. For a fixed, though currently longer than necessary, period, the artist gets most control. However, once he distributes it in permanent forms, it should be the public's prerogative to keep it forever. Just as is. I'd even argue that the artist is a total asshole if he doesn't ever make it availible to the public domain in it's original form. However, if the artist never releases it, it's also his perogative.
The problem is when the artist releases something, and then retroactively decides that it's not his vision and tries to replace it. Lucas and Speilburg have both tried. Again: The Star Wars Laserdisc. Nobody, not even the people who bought it, would be able to see it now.
Furthermore: The artist isn't going to be the one who controls the keys. It will, instead, be the publising company. If, an old, stuffy, executive, decides that he doesn't like the the language in one scene, he can just remove that scene. Someone new takes over Lions Gate films, and is offended by the mockery of religion in Dogma, and suddenly it doesn't exist. Somebody is offended by an episode of Friends, and it's NEVER ACCESSIBLE AGAIN. Gone. Poof. Unrecoverable. That is what DRM allows.
I use this quote by Paul Valery quite often: "A poem is never finished, only abandoned."
If you say that works of art are not allowed to be what they were intended to be - then you are putting limitations on that art. You are basically saying that artists have a limited palette in which to work with and if you really want to go extreme, you are no different than when the communists tried to do the exact same thing during the beginning of cinema.
There should be absolutely no restrictions on the creation of art. Destruction is part of that. Sure, you feel like you're free to call people "asshats" but you're not even attempting to look at this issue from another point of view whereas I'm forced to look at it from both. I'm an artist and in such, I also depend on things entering the public domain. But I demand to have artist's rights supported while they have their limited copyright.
The problem with your "audience" point of view is that you're outright refusing to look at this issue in any form of art outside film, music, and written word. If you had any sort of grasp on art at all, you'd see that those barely scratch the surface of what art truly is.
The point of art is self expression. Art has always stood for a reflection of the artist. Just because you all like to think of a work of art as a stand alone entity, doesn't make it so. Sure, artists think about their own place in society, but it's a side thought to self expression.
Fine, DRM is terrible, but that's hardly what the base issue here is. I've been saying this for a while now. The base issue is that artists should have complete control over their own work while they own it. I'm not even sure how there can be a debate on this. The whole "stealing from the future" argument is juvenile and ridiculous.
Furthermore, preservation of the arts for public domain should not be a popularity contest. You assume that your precious audience has always been on the right side of determining value. Many, many works aren't discovered until years after the artist is dead, if they are so lucky at all. Even Citizen Kane, my favorite movie and considered among many high critics to be the greatest film ever made, was shunned from the public eye until after William Randolph Hearst was dead in the 1950s. You want me to put stock in the public when the public doesn't have a taste for value? I'm certainly not going to wait around for your vision of the public. Where no one can be bothered with culture or society until it gets released into the public domain and in which case we cross our fingers that someone will have the decency to preserve it.
If the public doesn't care about the artist, then the artist shouldn't be forced to care about his public. Simple as that. And if that's true, I don't have an ounce of guilt for "stealing from the future" when that future is 100 years away. A person's art should live and die by the hands of the artist since if it wasn't for the artist, it wouldn't exist anyway. Quite frankly, your disrespect for the artist's intent and will of the work sickens me.
And GauntletWizard, way too often do you confuse "art" with "pop culture." Very rarely do those two things ever line up. Your argument for not allowing artists to control their own work is basically broken down into your claim that geek culture likes to "quote things." Don't sit around and wait for culture to come to you - artists are already at the mercy of their audiences, and I think it's terrible.
An artist, let's call him Woodsy McSculptor, has bought a plot of land in Washington, D.C. next to The Mall. He bought this plot of land so he could erect a beautiful piece of work to be on public display, but only for one week.
The scuplture he makes is a perfect replica of Columbus' expedition, the 3 ships, and teh entire crew on board each ship hard at work, hoisting sails and what have you. Now, he makes them completey out of a special wood: Marken Cherry. The special thing about Marken Cherry is that it lasts forever, but can be destroyed in one and only one way. Marken Termites eat Marken Cherry wood, and ONLY eat this wood, so there is no chance that they will go onto other trees or homes.
So what Woodsy McSculptor does, is he has the plot of land inD.C. and builds his beautiful replica of the Columbu's ships. People travel from around the world to look at it, and admire it. It is praised as one of the greatest works of art in human history.
And then a week later, Woodsy McSculptor lets loose the Marken Termites to eat away at his work over the next 2 days. On the 3rd day, the scuplture is completely gone, and the plot of land he had bought looks exactly like it did before he bought it. The art is gone, just as Woodsy McSculptor wanted.
From what I can tell, Scott will hate Woodsy, and I think Brian will defend Woodsy. I'll admit it was sort of a jerkish thing to do. But, it was Woodsy's intention all along to destroy his work. He made sure it would be his own private property too, jsut to insure his plan could not be interfered with.
Personally, it was Woodsy's property the whole time, even if it was in public sight, and he had every right to go through with the scenario exactly as I told it.
I hope my hypothetical has created a proper situation for everyone to express their views without confusion.
If a work is designed such that it inherently cannot be preserved, then documentation of it should be preserved instead. (A live recording of a performance, or a model each stage of decomposition, etc...) Unless the art inherently cannot be saved, either through its construction or ephemeral nature, then it should be saved. It is the destruction of this art that I cannot abide.