This past week's readings brought up many valuable points on both sides of the public domain dispute. Public domain has been proven to be very beneficial to future creatives. Creativity is almost impossible without inspiration and "creative borrowing." However, as artworks enter the public domain, companies are then able to create their own reproductions and profit off of them without having to pay any publishing fees. I believe to be somewhat unfair.
A possible solution to this could involve creating a tax that benefits the arts in some for
. The tax would be similar to a publishing fee and would decrease the profitability off of public domain works. This money could then be given as educational grants in order to benefit a new generation of artists.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
The Failure of the Public Domain System
"WHAT if, after you had paid the taxes on earnings with which you built a house, sales taxes on the materials, real estate taxes during your life, and inheritance taxes at your death, the government would eventually commandeer it entirely?"
A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn't Its Copyright? by Mark Helprin
Helprin uses this quote to demonstrate how flawed the system of transferring copyrighted materials to public domain after a specific period of time. He goes on to further demonstrate that while ideas and material may become more easily accessible to the public, behind the scenes, a transfer of wealth is occurring. Book Selling companies and distributors are now able to profit of of public-domain versions of books. This results from not having to pay publishing fees.
Sadly those that created the materials and their kin can no longer benefit financially from what was created. Now, corporations are receiving wealth from someone else's work all in the name of "the greater good of the public.
I believe that there are some benefits of the public domain system. New artists are able to build upon past works. For Example,
"Homer’s The Odyssey has given us Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Joyce’s Ulysses, and the Coen Brothers’O Brother Where Art Thou?" *
In situations, such as the example above, public domain has been a beneficial device. However, in today's society, I believe that the system must be modified in order to provide greater protection of people and properties.
*The center for the Study of Public Domain http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/pddfaq#q01
A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn't Its Copyright? by Mark Helprin
Helprin uses this quote to demonstrate how flawed the system of transferring copyrighted materials to public domain after a specific period of time. He goes on to further demonstrate that while ideas and material may become more easily accessible to the public, behind the scenes, a transfer of wealth is occurring. Book Selling companies and distributors are now able to profit of of public-domain versions of books. This results from not having to pay publishing fees.
Sadly those that created the materials and their kin can no longer benefit financially from what was created. Now, corporations are receiving wealth from someone else's work all in the name of "the greater good of the public.
I believe that there are some benefits of the public domain system. New artists are able to build upon past works. For Example,
"Homer’s The Odyssey has given us Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Joyce’s Ulysses, and the Coen Brothers’O Brother Where Art Thou?" *
In situations, such as the example above, public domain has been a beneficial device. However, in today's society, I believe that the system must be modified in order to provide greater protection of people and properties.
*The center for the Study of Public Domain http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/pddfaq#q01
Thursday, February 3, 2011
The Art of Video Games
"Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect"
Roger Ebert seems completely convinced that do not and never will represent art. One of his main arguments to support his claim is that a game has objectives and can be beat, while his definition of art is something that is only 'experienced.'
"One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them."
I honestly believe that all forms of video games can be considered a form of art. In a video game, the game designer creates environments and story lines that affect the players senses, emotions, and intellect. Just as novel can bring it's reader to tears, a video game can have an equal emotional impact.
Ebert also fails to acknowledge the sandbox-style games in which the video game designer creates an environment in which the player becomes the artist. These games can not be "won" in a traditional sense. All the creativity, exploration, and design is left to the player.
I don't find it difficult to believe that Ebert has such a short-sited view as he is a product of pre-internet Hollywood. Just as the recording industry has had a difficult time adjusting to the new age of technology, so has old-Hollywood ideology. While Mr. Ebert is entitled to his opinion, I do find his article to be short-sited, ill-informed and inflammatory, as reflected in the article responses.
Roger Ebert seems completely convinced that do not and never will represent art. One of his main arguments to support his claim is that a game has objectives and can be beat, while his definition of art is something that is only 'experienced.'
"One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them."
I honestly believe that all forms of video games can be considered a form of art. In a video game, the game designer creates environments and story lines that affect the players senses, emotions, and intellect. Just as novel can bring it's reader to tears, a video game can have an equal emotional impact.
Ebert also fails to acknowledge the sandbox-style games in which the video game designer creates an environment in which the player becomes the artist. These games can not be "won" in a traditional sense. All the creativity, exploration, and design is left to the player.
I don't find it difficult to believe that Ebert has such a short-sited view as he is a product of pre-internet Hollywood. Just as the recording industry has had a difficult time adjusting to the new age of technology, so has old-Hollywood ideology. While Mr. Ebert is entitled to his opinion, I do find his article to be short-sited, ill-informed and inflammatory, as reflected in the article responses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)