Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Jan 2011 12:02 UTC
Multimedia, AV I generally need a billion words to explain the problems inherit in the current copyright system. Joss Stone needs just one minute. "I don't care how you hear it - as long as you hear it." Can we please appoint Ms Stone as supreme overlord of the universe?
Permalink for comment 458653
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Back to the future.
by sparkyERTW on Mon 17th Jan 2011 18:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Back to the future."
sparkyERTW
Member since:
2010-06-09

My dad is too old to work anymore due to health problems. He was that way 2 years before the minimum age of retirement. No one argued that he should keep being paid his salary until retirement. Why should an artist get paid if they aren't actively creating? Thats one thing I never understood. So I do a job and get paid for it. The artist does a job and they should get paid for the next 100 years? WTF?


Because in this scenario your dad is the artist and his company is Big Content. Your dad creates something for his company, and his company profits from it while paying him nothing but the initial pittance for it (remember, all subsequent salary payments are for subsequent work). There's some holes in the analogy (artists do get royalty pay, albeit small), but overall it's a decent approximation.

As far as artists getting paid when they aren't actively creating, keep in mind that a) your $0.99 doesn't begin to cover the expense it took them to create that; they need a healthy number of sales to not only cover the cost but actually make some money for themselves, and b) most of us agree here copyright is far too long, so I agree with the "next 100 years" complaint, and c) unless you're a multi-platinum selling artist (which is a very small percentage of artists), you can't live off royalty cheques alone.

Edited 2011-01-17 18:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1