Stealing IP only from those want to be stolen from

What are the rules of the game for the people who promote free downloads of movies and music?

I can see that there would be room for musicians and film makers who release all their material for free so other people can copy it and enjoy it. I can see how the artists would benefit from the attention and appreciation they get, and from the fact that people can listen before they buy. I can see millions of people paying to go to the concerts with those artists and freely paying for the material on online stores out of sheer gratitude. I can also see that the results might be better if left to true enthusiasts who believe in their art than the industrially produced movies of Hollywood and big music companies.

However, I cannot see that it could be my decision if a particular artist should handle his/her music in that way.

If a movie company invests in a new movie based on the assumption that people should pay for it every time they watch it - in the cinema or on their own devices, then, surely, it is not up to me to change that business assumption by downloading the film for free from some channel the movie company does not control?

If a musician hates making tours and wants to live on selling their music only on recorded media, then, how can I take the decision that this musician should give away their music for free to me?

Isn't the inevitable conclusion that it is not only illegal, but also immoral, to acquire intellectual property for free against the express wish of the producer?

If all media was free, then we would limit the production of movies that require people to pay. We would limit the music that depends on payment.

But on the other hand, this does not mean that the protection of the artist's rights has to be a top priority of the state. It does not mean that harsh punishments and infringements on freedom of speech are excused.

It just means that we should follow the rules of the game.

Why does Charybdis send the Stocks up?

It is pretty clear that the Greek cannot go on spending like they do. They have to cut down, because there is no money to spend.

On the other hand, it is very unlikely that the recent austerity measures will actually help their economy. They will slow it down. The measures will lead to increased poverty and probably to increased unemployment. Having a lot of unemployed Greek will not help any economy - the Greek or any other one.

Now, as the Greek parliament accepts the austerity measures that will sink their economy, the stocks of the world go up. Is that really the right direction?

Scylla and Charybdis. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I have a feeling that the stocks go up not because the investors think what is happening is good. Perhaps not even because it is the lesser of two evils. But because now, at least, there is less uncertainty.

Optics in Renaissance Art

I just watched a program about the so called "Hockney–Falco thesis", which claims that the explosive development of renaissance art largely was due to advances in optics and new techniques for mirrors and lenses for camera obscura. The controversial bit of the theory is basically the word largely.

It is well known that artists did use optics to project pictures on to canvases, like in the 16th century picture below from a "Sketchbook on military art, including geometry, fortifications, artillery, mechanics, and pyrotechnics". (Source: Wikipedia commons.)

The controversial bit is just how much it was used, and if it was crucial to the explosion of life like pieces of art from the renaissance and onwards. And I do not care. I'm agnostic.

Regardless, it is interesting to consider the possibility that already at the time, there was a technical competition between artists. Those who could afford the best optical equipment could achieve the best paintings, just like you today can achieve much better photos with a DSLR camera than with a phone camera. There may have been discussions already at the time, which tools were best, like we today discuss the advantage of high resolution over noise reduction in dark pictures.

Besides, a large number of objects must have been real. When we see a magnificent lute in an old still life, it is very likely that the artist really had access to a lute in order to project it onto the canvas. It was probably rare that he painted something he had seen in the past from memory.

The artists could project different objects on top of each other, and paint one person one day, and call in another person to be projected onto the same canvas another day - each part being photorealistic in isolation. But just like when we today cut and paste layers in Photoshop, one had to pay attention to make sure that the different parts fit together realistically.

It is said that when Matteo Ricci in 1601 introduced Western paintings to the Chinese emperor Wànlì (万历, 萬曆), there were people at the court who said that the paintings were admirably life like, but it was not art. If the paintings indeed were made with optical aids, the Chinese may have perceived them like we perceive holiday snaps next to a Renoir or Picasso.

The Italian painter Giovanni Niccolo taught painting in Japan at the end of the 16th century. His pupil Jacopo Niva (倪一誠) executed religious art at several locations in China, like a copy of a Virgin of St Luke for a church in Beijing and decorations for a church in Nanchang. Matteo Ricci noted that to the Chinese, Niva's pictures seemed more like sculptures than paintings. I know of no evidence that Niva actually used optical projections for his paintings, but even if he did not, his paintings built on a tradition that partially included optical projections. The perceived hyper-realism could explain the Chinese reactions.