> so
there is nothing obvious in that deduction.
For cinema for instance a loooot of the money that serves into making movies come directly from taxpayer money - a figure I can find in the US is 1.5 billion $ of tax per year for instance in one occurence : https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/us/when-hollywood-comes-t... - and let's not get started about public tv which is pretty much mostly public funds.
Likewise for my country, France - only a minority of money invested in movies comes directly from private pockets: https://i.f1g.fr/media/figaro/704x319_cropupscale/2019/03/19...
I just went off on you on your use of of the term “rights” but when you bring up the government subsidies of movies here in the States—-I agree completely. In fact, as far as I’m concerned any government subsidy at all should render the entire production public domain. I’m not being facetious.
Thank you for pointing this stuff out.
> For cinema for instance a loooot of the money that serves into making movies come directly from taxpayer money
I don't quite get your point either. Are you implying you would like ownership to be transfered from your tax money to whatever is created afterward with that money?
Would you feel entitled to ask for reports of how your neighbor spends his unemployment grant, because that's partly paid with your tax money?
> Are you implying you would like ownership to be transfered from your tax money to whatever is created afterward with that money?
I'd rather have no notion of private ownership of ideas, knowledge and cultural goods at all.
> Would you feel entitled to ask for reports of how your neighbor spends his unemployment grant, because that's partly paid with your tax money?
I don't think it's really meaningful to compare something that allows human beings to (barely) stay alive, to the benefit of for-profit corporations.
Where do you draw the line between artist making money and for-profit corporation? Does a person have the right to limit the distribution of their own work?
> there is nothing obvious in that deduction.
But it is: The concept of "private property" is pervasive and deeply ingrained in modern Western civilization. You should have very, very good ethical and practical reasons for why this should be changed.
Let me try a different angle: If you put a two-minute video of an albatross gliding through the air on Youtube, should viewers of your video also have the right to see the other five hours of your holiday footage?
You're conflating copyright and privacy. What's being discussed above is really more akin to you "If you post an albatross video on Youtube, should someone else be able to do a remix" or "should someone else be allowed to repost it in their peertube instance".
> You're conflating copyright and privacy.
No, this has nothing to do with privacy. The context was "When you buy a DVD, you don't expect hundreds of hours of unedited footage to come along with the film so you can cut together your own version." [1] jcelerier argued that consumers of a movie should have the right to receive all unpublished footage, I argued against that. In my analogy, the "buying a DVD" part is viewing the albatros-video, and the unedited, unpublished footage is the unedited, unpublished footage.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25505851
> should have the right to receive all unpublished footage [of the licensed work]
I think it should be read that way. You are not conflating copyright and privacy, you are conflating scopes of content production (the licensed work vs the whole work of the artist).
In your example, the topic of the licensed video is the albatross, not the artist holidays. That clarification being made, there's probably some truth in the privacy issue (you brought that example for a reason): one must make a distinction between works of fiction and other works : reporting, biography, and perhaps other kinds. Games are works of fiction, just like movies and music, while someone's holidays isn't. Maybe one may see that as another form of scoping.
> the licensed work vs the whole work of the artist
Ahh, I think I see the source of the confusion: in my analogy, the two-minute albatross video is cut and edited from the five-hour holiday footage. Sorry, that was my fault for being unclear.
Let's talk about intent. In the example of wanting the studio to give you all their unedited footage so you can make your own cut, all of that footage was taken with the intent to produce a movie with it (obviously all of it did not make the cut, but the intent was there).
For this holiday video, it was taken with the intent to -- privately -- document someone's holiday. Incidentally, the person taking the video happened to find a two-minute segment that they thought might be interesting to others, and they were comfortable giving away (because that portion of the video didn't intrude on their privacy).
The point I'm making here is that situations are different. Situations have nuance. You can't just presume equivalence and throw an argument in someone's face along the lines of "if you want someone to do X then you have to be comfortable with Y". Because no, you don't, and it's not logically inconsistent to hold that view.
(For the record, I don't think the studio should be required to give you all their unpolished, pre-cut footage. But I also don't think it's contradictory to imagine a world where that was the norm, but it was not the norm to expect people to post their entire holiday video when they just want to post a short segment.)
Addendum: In the analogy, the two-minute video of the albatross is cut and edited from the rest of the holiday footage, in the same way that a released movie is cut and edited from many hours of unreleased footage.