That's not what I'm arguing for at all. In fact, I'm arguing for the opposite - that the market value of a work is a poor indicator as to whether the work is critically important or not. Indefinite copyright terms stifle the progress of the arts by not providing a larger pool to draw ideas and inspiration from.

There have been arguments that artists shouldn't be professionals - that first, they should make a living and then produce art, and further, that there should be minimal funding of the arts as they produce little of economic value. Many of the people that advance this argument also complain that there's not enough funding for basic science. They continue by saying basic science advances our fundamental understanding of the universe and that funding should be provided for basic science even if it does not produce much of economic value in the short term, and that basic science shouldn't be relegated to a part time endeavor by scientists who have to first make a living by doing more commercially viable research.

What I am saying is that art can have just as large of an impact of our understanding of the world - not in increasing our understanding of how the universe fundamentally works, but by increasing our understanding of the human condition. Art can be just as thought provoking as science. They're similar but not the same.

In my view, anybody complaining about the slashing of science and not the slashing of art is a short sighted hypocrite. Nobody should make a living for doing nothing. Nobody should be guaranteed their position at the table or guaranteed a living. Both the artist and the scientist should work hard, and we should be rewarding those that turn out the best critical work, even if that work is not economically profitable in the short term because not doing so relegates art and basic science to side projects.

Some art is both commercially and critically successful. Some basic science is commercially profitable and beneficial. But always tying profitability to success in art and science misses the times when unprofitable things are beneficial.

And I, am of course, an idiot. Yes, an advance has plenty to do with production and distribution costs - namely, that an advance is part of production costs. However, if you lower production costs and distribution costs and the gross amount that the book makes, then an advance could be the major part of the production cost, and be what the publishing houses trim next.

Only if you believe that a corporation should have the same rights as an individual citizen.

I used that example only because it was convenient. Let's take the corporations out of it and see if it still holds, and if it does, then you are right.

then any person with your credit card number could freely share it with anybody else. Your local grocer or your friends could share your history of purchases with your local insurance agent so they can set rates based upon your diet, your recreation habits, and the power tools you own.

It sounds like that would be an invasion of privacy (and speech restricted on the basis thereof) regardless of whether a corporation was involved.

I'm not saying that they should be guaranteed an income or a living. What I am saying is that it's hard to be an artist. Those that are truly motivated because art is a calling will be fine no matter what happens. Those who have talent but would like to make a living are either going to have to produce what society wants (as society's judgment of the market value of their work is what feeds, clothes, and shelters them) or do something else for a living, and that's fine. I don't have a problem with it.

However, without incentives, only those that are truly devoted to their calling or who have a knack for producing what society wants will be able to create. Some of the most radical, thought-provoking, and critically acclaimed art is not popular or profitable, much like basic science research is rarely profitable, but they both advance mankind.

What I see on Slashdot is hypocrisy. On one hand, people complain that science, basic, fundamental science, is not being funded enough, and that governments or large organizations should be giving more grants to researchers to keep science from being a strictly commercial venture, as commercial ventures, as a rule, focus on what brings in more profit in the near and medium terms. Some organizations (for example, back when Bell Labs was active) focus on the long term, but most focus on the short term.

On the other hand, people are complaining that artists shouldn't expect funding in the form of grants (advances, for example) from governments or large organizations even though artistic contributions can have similar effects on society. They feel that artists should produce what is profitable. Ideas are powerful and insight into how we perceive this world, either scientific or artistic, has real meaning, regardless of if they bring in the most profit.

You'd have less crappy books out there from young authors who want a simple "cash in" solution to paying the bills by throwing any garbage out there and having it published.

It seems rather silly to think that large publishing companies won't sponsor people, regardless of the distribution medium, if they think they're going to get large return on investment. That's good economics, regardless of the medium.

Only those truly dedicated to the craft would succeed. You would of course have fewer books, but of better calibre.

Self publishing might open the market to persistent authors, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll be of higher quality.

It's a bootstrapping problem. You're not likely going to be able to find a large enough audience to pay in advance for a book unless you've already written something already popular. Some of the most critically acclaimed works are not popular, and some of the most popular works are not critically acclaimed.

An advance has nothing to do with production and distribution costs. The amount of money a book makes has everything to do with those two factors. A book published digitally will have a lower production and distribution cost, however, in most cases, it will also be available for less money.

It would be interesting to see the revenue and profit breakdown between books available only digitally, only on paper, and on both.

Yes, but if an author can't get an advance from a publishing company, fewer authors will be able to afford to take the time away from their "real jobs" to write a book. Yes, you can build an audience using unpolished, unedited work, and yes, you can take many years to write a book, but the first route leaves you looking like an amateur and the second route means you are more likely to get frustrated and give up halfway through.

The vast majority of books aren't a hit on the level of Harry Potter or Twilight. Most barely break even. The way that an author can afford to write them is by taking an advance and writing the book. It's the advances that keep the author fed, clothed, and sheltered between books if it's budgeted properly. I'm sure book signings and other "feelies" can help, but for every New York Times bestseller, there are hundreds of decent books that barely break even.

This goes down to the root of one primordial liberty: Free speech. If you can talk freely, it means you can communicate freely with your neighbor. So you can give hime any information. Including a movie, MP3 or a digital book. Because down to its core, digital data is just information.

The thing is, in the United States, we regularly limit free speech rights. For example, speech that incites criminal acts (for example, a riot) is regulated. Commercial speech is regulated. Copyright limits freedom of speech. Society would not function otherwise. If we define the sharing of information as freedom of speech, then any company with your credit card number could freely share it with anybody else. Your credit card company or bank could share your history of purchases with your insurance company so they can set rates based upon your diet, your recreation habits, and the power tools you own. All of this is information, yet we see fit to regulate the ways in which it is shared.

I agree with you that DRM is bad and it is an abuse of copyright and the right of first sale. Trotting out the old hacker belief that "information wants to and ought to be free" and "freedom of speech trumps all" does not reflect the mindset of the framers of the United States Constitution nor does it reflect the mindset of society today, regardless of how simple, romantic, and seductive the argument seems.

I love you.

Plus, when you redistribute, you're free to re-license under the GPL. So if this gets someone's panties in a twist, fix a few bugs and fork under the GPL. Clearly, if you're complaining about the license, you can do a better job so this should be trivial for you.

Actually, they're just using the LGPL. If that bothers you, declare your copy to be GPL and follow the restrictions of the GPL, according to the LGPL:

3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public
License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do
this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so
that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2,
instead of to this License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the
ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify
that version instead if you wish.) Do not make any other change in
these notices.

    Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for
that copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all
subsequent copies and derivative works made from that copy.

    This option is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of
the Library into a program that is not a library.

That was back when exercising discretion wasn't a one-way ticket to being sued.

Does this mean that I'll finally be able to enjoy a movie in a theater without some annoying person poking at their cellphone, either making noise or light?

Those people are the reason I don't see movies in theaters and just watch them at home when they come out on DVD.

Gotta love the editing on Wikipedia, coupled with a sick sense of humor: