#1
Hey guys, I've to speak in a debate with the topic "This House Would Abolish Intellectual Property", which we're proposing. As the musician on the team, I have to speak on how intellectual property affects music.

Is there anyone who can help me out with this? All points are appreciated.
#2
Intellectual property is for those greedy moneybags who are making music solely for money. They're just using the intellectual property to defend the fact that nobody wants to rip off their shitty music.
2013 #5 Uger
2012 #7 Uger

Quote by jetfuel495
Jesus, Horsedick, you are my hero

Quote by JayT44
don't worry guys his girlfriend is black, she said it was okay for him to say that.



Stalk Me

Shitty Covers

Original Music

Lastfm
#3
The immediate implication of having no intellectual property is that plagiarism is no longer an illegal appropriation and credit to an artist for their creations or philosophies is neither a necessity or even a right. Which would, in time, fundamentally cripple the art world. It's the same reason a scientist is credited for a discovery: they did it. They pushed the boundaries forwards; they reap the rewards for personally placing time and effort into an endeavour which progresses human society.

However what horsedick says is relevant: particularly wealthy artists will use this to their advantage and basically feed off greedy capitalism, which is what has made the music industry how it is today (with major labels, at least).

Then again some famous artists buy a small house in the middle of several acres of field, put it aside, and invest the rest in the art world or charities or what have you.
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
Last edited by Banjocal at Jul 30, 2013,
#4
You should get a new amp, that'll definitely affect music more than intellectual property.
Quote by Pleasure2kill
The truth is, Muslims never apologized for their faith having something to do with the attacks on 9/11.
#5
None of the arts could survive without a concept of intellectual property.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#6
Quote by Todd Hart
None of the arts could survive without a concept of intellectual property.


#7
I don't know why you'd need to argue specifically on the basis of music. A large portion of first world countries relies on IP protection. Without it, the economy would tank.

What kind of dumbass exercise is this where they make you argue based on a wrong proposition?

Some fuckin schools I swear....

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
Last edited by Xiaoxi at Jul 30, 2013,
#8
Quote by Xiaoxi
I don't know why you'd need to argue specifically on the basis of music. A large portion of first world countries relies on IP protection. Without it, the economy would tank.

What kind of dumbass exercise is this where they make you argue based on a wrong proposition?

Some fuckin schools I swear....
When the evil, out of touch aliens take over the Earth their first move will be to abolish IP. We must prepare for The Event.
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
#9
Quote by Banjocal
The immediate implication of having no intellectual property is that plagiarism is no longer an illegal appropriation and credit to an artist for their creations or philosophies is neither a necessity or even a right. Which would, in time, fundamentally cripple the art world. It's the same reason a scientist is credited for a discovery: they did it. They pushed the boundaries forwards; they reap the rewards for personally placing time and effort into an endeavour which progresses human society.

However what horsedick says is relevant: particularly wealthy artists will use this to their advantage and basically feed off greedy capitalism, which is what has made the music industry how it is today (with major labels, at least).

Then again some famous artists buy a small house in the middle of several acres of field, put it aside, and invest the rest in the art world or charities or what have you.


Science is different from Art in a couple of ways and to speak about these two in equal terms, abstract economic ones as how much of it is produced, is somewhat missing the point of Art. I don't think it wouldn cripple the art world as a whole, but it would change it in ways I can't fathom. But the core art world now (such as European modern art) is an elitist endeavour and serves mostly rich investors who want to park some of their money. However I do believe it's great that some people get to do what they like and get paid for it, but intellectual property the way we have it now came about in the 1800's, and the art world got along just fine before that. Heck, a lot of the most expensive and awe-inspiring paintings and sculptures around nowadays were made back when artists didn't even sign their work.
#10
Quote by Divinephyton
Science is different from Art in a couple of ways and to speak about these two in equal terms, abstract economic ones as how much of it is produced, is somewhat missing the point of Art. I don't think it wouldn cripple the art world as a whole, but it would change it in ways I can't fathom. But the core art world now (such as European modern art) is an elitist endeavour and serves mostly rich investors who want to park some of their money. However I do believe it's great that some people get to do what they like and get paid for it, but intellectual property the way we have it now came about in the 1800's, and the art world got along just fine before that. Heck, a lot of the most expensive and awe-inspiring paintings and sculptures around nowadays were made back when artists didn't even sign their work.
I am not making them equal: I am noting the parallel present between the two in relation to giving credit to those who help progress society in different ways.

It would likely cripple it in today's society. Modern art isn't particularly elitist among the people who know what they're talking about and have studied it. Many people are intimidated because they're told the shitty twee paintings of cats they think are so fantastic are the visual equivalent of One Direction. Incredibly popular artists like Rothko and Schiele are hailed as geniuses even though they're very well known, even by those whom are particularly critical. Pollock is one of the most famous contemporary artists yet it is accepted by even the most elitist that he has been a driving force in modern art. And the issue is that capitalism is considerably more present now, and agencies, like the music industry, would take every opportunity they could get to take other's work, put it under their own manufactured star, and make a fortune. And because it would be legal, the artist could do nothing.

Before the 1800s the art world was considerably less progressive than it is now
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
Last edited by Banjocal at Jul 30, 2013,
#11
Quote by Divinephyton
Science is different from Art in a couple of ways and to speak about these two in equal terms, abstract economic ones as how much of it is produced, is somewhat missing the point of Art. I don't think it wouldn cripple the art world as a whole, but it would change it in ways I can't fathom. But the core art world now (such as European modern art) is an elitist endeavour and serves mostly rich investors who want to park some of their money. However I do believe it's great that some people get to do what they like and get paid for it, but intellectual property the way we have it now came about in the 1800's, and the art world got along just fine before that. Heck, a lot of the most expensive and awe-inspiring paintings and sculptures around nowadays were made back when artists didn't even sign their work.


It would have been impossible for anyone to claim ownership of something they did not create at those times, though, because people would simply say 'Well actually this is clearly written in X's hand'.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#12
Quote by Todd Hart
It would have been impossible for anyone to claim ownership of something they did not create at those times, though, because people would simply say 'Well actually this is clearly written in X's hand'.
yeah they did do that a lot. Artists often had their own little "signature" where they would write their... signature... in a particular object, position, or body part of a work.
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
#13
It's hard to imagine why anyone would write a book or make a movie if there was nothing preventing the world from simply copying it. I guess some people would, but not many. They'd be unable to make a living at it. Same goes for music.

Don't get distracted by the fact that rich artists may not need a paycheck. The poor ones desperately need a paycheck.
#15
Quote by captaincrunk
maybe survival is the problem here. art to survive isn't really in the spirit of what art seems to be.


How so? All art is fundamentally about going beyond your own death.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#17
The Arts-fancy Name For Someone Paints A Red Dot On A Canvas And Sells It For 10,000 Dollars.or Make A Picture Of Jesus Out Of Tampons.real Art Is A 5 Year Old Making His Mommie A Picture He Drew
#18
Quote by Todd Hart
None of the arts could survive without a concept of intellectual property.


We have a lot of examples of art that has no known author, this isn't as much as evident with music because it became somewhat convenient to write down music for future generations when history was already being recorded properly, so authorship was traceable.
#20
Quote by Banjocal
I am not making them equal: I am noting the parallel present between the two in relation to giving credit to those who help progress society in different ways.

Modern art isn't particularly elitist among the people who know what they're talking about and have studied it. Many people are intimidated because they're told the shitty twee paintings of cats they think are so fantastic are the visual equivalent of One Direction. Incredibly popular artists like Rothko and Schiele are hailed as geniuses even though they're very well known, even by those whom are particularly critical. Pollock is one of the most famous contemporary artists yet it is accepted by even the most elitist that he has been a driving force in modern art. And the issue is that capitalism is considerably more present now, and agencies, like the music industry, would take every opportunity they could get to take other's work, put it under their own manufactured star, and make a fortune. And because it would be legal, the artist could do nothing.

Before the 1800s the art world was considerably less progressive than it is now



You're kind of proving my point about elitism here bub.
Also, none of the artists you've mentioned are modern european artists. Schiele is an expressionist Austrian from before the great war! The other two are American (or -based). I'm talking about people like Panamarenko, Fabre, or for example see the ECB's (European Central Bank) report on modern Dutch artists.

I do agree that the paradigm for 'art' was a lot less diverse and there were a lot more commonalities, but the way you put it leads one to think that progressive equals good, which is exactly what's wrong with the modern art establishment.
Last edited by Divinephyton at Aug 9, 2013,