But if we are talking about famous artist architects (like your Frank Lloyd Wrights, and I’m sure there are others), the yeah they probably are actually.
But we’re not talking about resale are we? We are talking about bootlegging legitimate artwork.
Because that copy was already sold, and the artist already received their cut of the profits (however tiny). They’re not entitled to any percent of resales, so there’s no reason to be in contact with them.
Bootlegging is not the same as reselling. Especially since we’re talking about digital music here. Something that can be copied exactly for free. This isn’t even like someone painting a forgery, which would at least be a distinct piece of art. That would be more like if an artist recorded a cover of an entire album (and then claimed it as their own, which is where it becomes problematic imo. Just covering the album would be fine if they give credit to the original artist).
I’ve got tons of issues with how our current copyright system is set up, but so many people seem to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
There should be some protections for the people creating the actual artwork. It’s ethically wrong to take someone else’s artwork and sell it as your own without permission. It’s insane that this even needs to be said.
The original post was about burning CDs and charging the dupication cost, we already covered the industrial scale boodtlegging for profit falls under counterfeiting.
In terms of profits to the original artist it’s exactly the same as resale though, they get zero from both.
You are very naive if you think copyright is serving the actual artists producing art.
Sketchy analogy.
But if we are talking about famous artist architects (like your Frank Lloyd Wrights, and I’m sure there are others), the yeah they probably are actually.
But we’re not talking about resale are we? We are talking about bootlegging legitimate artwork.
Even for legitimate copies, a retailer doesn’t get in touch with the artist to let them know who they’ve sold a copy to.
Because that copy was already sold, and the artist already received their cut of the profits (however tiny). They’re not entitled to any percent of resales, so there’s no reason to be in contact with them.
Bootlegging is not the same as reselling. Especially since we’re talking about digital music here. Something that can be copied exactly for free. This isn’t even like someone painting a forgery, which would at least be a distinct piece of art. That would be more like if an artist recorded a cover of an entire album (and then claimed it as their own, which is where it becomes problematic imo. Just covering the album would be fine if they give credit to the original artist).
I’ve got tons of issues with how our current copyright system is set up, but so many people seem to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
There should be some protections for the people creating the actual artwork. It’s ethically wrong to take someone else’s artwork and sell it as your own without permission. It’s insane that this even needs to be said.
The original post was about burning CDs and charging the dupication cost, we already covered the industrial scale boodtlegging for profit falls under counterfeiting.
In terms of profits to the original artist it’s exactly the same as resale though, they get zero from both.
You are very naive if you think copyright is serving the actual artists producing art.