Intellectual property

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This thread is for a discussion on intellectual property, particularly relating to the music and film industry, and the advent of websites that offer free streaming and free downloads (in the form of a torrent, for instance).

When I was first introduced to Marxism I was sceptical that IPRs were so fundamental to the emancipation of the poor. However, as time has gone on I have realised how crucial it in fact is, that film material, advertisement/propaganda material and indeed music are spread to as wide an audience as possible.

I do have a query or two, though.

Clearly, even in a Socialist society, 'art' as it were, would not really be subject to democratic planning, in that it would be abhorrent and against the values of creative art to tell an artist which music to produce, and to tell the publishers what quantity should be produced initially and thereafter. So how do we propose balancing the need for zero infringement on the rights of people to freely view any music, film or television program they wish, with the need of artists to make some form of living (even if their income from their art is merely a part-time subsidy in addition to a part/full-time job that is more 'economically productive)?

[Psy]

This thread is for a discussion on intellectual property, particularly relating to the music and film industry, and the advent of websites that offer free streaming and free downloads (in the form of a torrent, for instance).

When I was first introduced to Marxism I was sceptical that IPRs were so fundamental to the emancipation of the poor. However, as time has gone on I have realised how crucial it in fact is, that film material, advertisement/propaganda material and indeed music are spread to as wide an audience as possible.

I do have a query or two, though.

Clearly, even in a Socialist society, 'art' as it were, would not really be subject to democratic planning, in that it would be abhorrent and against the values of creative art to tell an artist which music to produce, and to tell the publishers what quantity should be produced initially and thereafter. So how do we propose balancing the need for zero infringement on the rights of people to freely view any music, film or television program they wish, with the need of artists to make some form of living (even if their income from their art is merely a part-time subsidy in addition to a part/full-time job that is more 'economically productive)?
We have a two tiers of studios, industrial studios where art projects would be planned through budgeting resources and labor. The next tier of studios would be community studios where the goal would simply be providing the means for artists to create art with far less production value.

In the case of the industrial studio artists would be workers working producing art for the community no different then a engineer engineer for the community thus they would have no right to limit access to their art anymore then a engineer would have a right to limit access to their designs.

In the case of the community studio it is more just giving artists a place to express themselves, most probably want to have their work seen so they probably wouldn't mind it being shared.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

And what would the relationship between the two tiered studios be? For instance, what are the prospects for a talented artist to move beyond the community studio and into the professional realm? Would that be the choice of them or of whoever sets the budget?

Surely a problem may arise, in that as art is something subjective, it could indeed become politicised if the exposure an artist can get is related to their budget which is presumably set by a political department - often political figures are not the best judges of art. Who would it be that judges who gets what budget and so on?

[Psy]

And what would the relationship between the two tiered studios be? For instance, what are the prospects for a talented artist to move beyond the community studio and into the professional realm?

Great since the community studio would be where new artists learn and are discovered.



Would that be the choice of them or of whoever sets the budget?

It would be the choice of the worker collective of the industrial studios.



Surely a problem may arise, in that as art is something subjective, it could indeed become politicised if the exposure an artist can get is related to their budget which is presumably set by a political department - often political figures are not the best judges of art. Who would it be that judges who gets what budget and so on?
That would not be the cause, the industrial studio would be run by its worker collective (with artists also being workers) with their budget set by larger production plans, meaning the macro plan for art would just be budgeting industrial studios, industrial studios then would plan on how to spend their budget.

[cyu]

So how do we propose balancing the need for zero infringement on the rights of people to freely view any music, film or television program they wish, with the need of artists to make some form of living (even if their income from their art is merely a part-time subsidy in addition to a part/full-time job that is more 'economically productive)?

Excerpt from equal pay for unequal work (http://everything2.com/title/equal%20pay%20for%20unequal%20work)

Everyone in the economy gets paid the same monthly salary - regardless of whether you're a child, an engineer, retired, or whatever (yes, people in more difficult jobs may get more "respect" than other jobs, but that's just social conditioning and not related to their salaries)... The concept of a salary is no longer a "reward" for work, but as just a method used so that everyone can help determine what goods and services are valuable.