The problem, Monsieur AC, is that you are the only one who thinks it walks like a duck.

So if you would like to convince the rest of us that it walks like a duck, we’re going to need to see some evidence.

Or in a short pithy statement, “pics or GTFO.”

Creators should have total control over their work. Those who don’t want to pay for that work shouldn’t steal it, and if they want to threaten not to buy someone’s work, it’s up to the artist to heed or ignore the threat.

I can agree with this in principle, with limitations on the extent of "total." There are some issues with basing everything off of this, though.

For one, the current system, at least in the music industry, doesn’t have the actual creators having total control over the product. The songs are owned by the various labels, much of the time. I take objection to this.

I personally think copyright should be non-transferable. If you wrote the song, you cannot sell the copyright to any other entity, and no one can inherit it from you. The only transfer of copyright should be the one that transfers a work out of copyright, and into the public domain after a reasonable period of time.

In terms of the rest of it… again, I agree with you in principle. No, people should not try to steal the work, and yes, if they want to threaten not to buy someone’s work, it should be up to the artist to heed or ignore the threat.

The problem is that the operative word here is "should." In reality, there will be people who will try to enjoy the work without paying. This has been the case for the entirety of human history. To ignore it is foolish.

Secondly, it is very important to examine the effectiveness of attempts to address this fact, and it is equally important to consider what all the effects of said attempts will be.

If a method being used to try and curtail the infringement of this creator’s right is proven to be ineffective, why should it continue to be used? It does not work.

Additionally, if a method being used to try and curtail the infringement of the creator’s right is proven to infringe upon separate rights of others, than we have another whole issue.

See, the creator has exercised their right to expression in the creation of a work. I, you, and everyone else has their own rights to expression, exactly the same as the creator’s. The problem with a mandatory upload filter is that upload filters are going to infringe on that right.

There will be many, many cases where perfectly legal, non-infringing content gets caught in the wide-ranging net that would be put in place. It happens now with Content ID.

To me, the creator’s right to control is not superior to anyone else’s right to create in the first place. I will not support any effort to protect creators that infringes on the rights of the rest of the populace in the process.

Ahem.

Patron:

1. one who buys the goods or uses the services offered especially by an establishment, e.g. a restaurant’s patrons

Patronage:

1. the support or influence of a patron, e.g. the patronage of science by universities
2. business or activity provided by patrons, e.g. the new branch library is expected to have a heavy patronage

I don’t know, kind of sounds like patronage is people buying goods and services which means that is the ONLY way you make money. Different business models may change how your patrons do business with you, but that doesn’t change the fact that anyone who pays for something is a patron of whatever individual or artist is doing the selling. Copyright wasn’t designed to make patronage unnecessary, it was designed to PROTECT patronage. If by some weird reason you are actually correct (you’re not), then copyright needs to die in a fire and be spat upon until the end of time because then it’s purpose is to harm everyone.

The only business model that works now is a hyb rid of free content and patronage

Yeah, because every business model is covered under patronage, see above definitions.

Someone here posted that this was a "good wage" for "a few hours of writing," while ignoring the need for anyone else to get paid

If I write and record a song and sell it on iTunes or Amazon Music, and iTunes and Amazon take, say, a 15% cut off the top and I get 85%, who else needs to get paid? If that song brings in $5000, that means I make $4250 in direct profit. That seems like a pretty good wage to me for one song.

the years it takes to learn how to write #1 hits

So what you’re saying is people actually have to be good at what they do if they want to make the big bucks? Sounds fair to me. Or are you saying it’s unfair that the guy who didn’t take the time to develop his skill and talent doesn’t make as much as the guy who spent years honing his musical skill and acumen? (this applies to any job by the way)

the costs of producing music videos that aren’t viral cellphone stuff that dominates now because that model works.

If the viral cellphone stuff model works better than costly music videos then what is the problem? It’s easier and cheaper to produce, more accessible, and more available to budding and indie artists who aren’t signed with a major recording label.

Creators should have total control over their work.

I agree. And they absolutely don’t have that if they are signed to a major recording label. If they want total control of their work then they should never sign a contract and go full indie.

Those who don’t want to pay for that work shouldn’t steal it

Agreed, but what’s your point? There are already laws against stealing.

if they want to threaten not to buy someone’s work, it’s up to the artist to heed or ignore the threat.

Agreed. That’s how "patronage" works.

Your arguments really smack of protecting one specific industry, ignoring the fact that progress and change are moving beyond them and that industry is not as needed or important as it once was. There are thousands, if not millions of new artists who are now making some money from their art, where before they made none because the magic of the internet and technology has allowed them to create, produce, publish, market, advertise, and sell their stuff on their own, without begging for a fractional percentage cuts by signing the rights to their stuff away to a major record label. And that’s if the record label even deigns to notice them. Now they are getting the lion’s share of the profits and actually making something as opposed to nothing.

Honestly, now that I think about it, the internet has, in some ways, returned art and patronage of it, to its roots, like back in the days of the Renaissance, where people paid artists directly for their work.