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?
Thread beginning with comment 458593
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
sparkyERTW
Member since:
2010-06-09

"Benefiting from the results of labour without providing compensation, hmmm... now what does that remind me of...


Art.
"

Now let's hold on a minute. Even going back centuries ago when copyright term was still short - hell, even before copyright - artists were compensated for their works in order to make a living. Composers such as Beethoven and painters such as Leonardo Da Vinci were commissioned to create works of art. These artists were able to make a living, which gave them the freedom to create their art as they see it.

What you seem to be promoting is a society where someone should not be able to make a living making art. Let's see what kind of wonderful art gets created when the artist has no choice but to put in a 40-hour day job as well.

Reply Parent Score: 4

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Now let's hold on a minute. Even going back centuries ago when copyright term was still short - hell, even before copyright - artists were compensated for their works in order to make a living. Composers such as Beethoven and painters such as Leonardo Da Vinci were commissioned to create works of art. These artists were able to make a living, which gave them the freedom to create their art as they see it.


Now let's. All artists had patrons, that paid and sustained them to create magnificent works of art. I can say, that artists that are in it for money create "cheap art"(All pop/rock music). Now, we get the "art" that sells itself on the net to generate revenue for the "artist".

Reply Parent Score: 3

mkone Member since:
2006-03-14

[q]Now let's. All artists had patrons, that paid and sustained them to create magnificent works of art. I can say, that artists that are in it for money create "cheap art"(All pop/rock music). Now, we get the "art" that sells itself on the net to generate revenue for the "artist".


Are you honestly comparing todays world where art is democratic, to one where all the art that was created was what wealthy patrons would pay for. Art is an expression of the people, and less wealthy people, who cannot ordinarily afford to commission anything greater than a photograph can at least have art that is created for them, not for some wealthy class.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What you seem to be promoting is a society where someone should not be able to make a living making art. Let's see what kind of wonderful art gets created when the artist has no choice but to put in a 40-hour day job as well.


I'm not promoting that at all. What gave you that idea?

You are one of the many, many people Stone referred to as "brainwashed". Selling records only makes up an incredibly small portion of an artists' income. That's why most artists prefer to tour and do promotion deals - those make them way more money than selling albums. Even before the web.

The simple fact of the matter is that if artists want to make money, they have to work for it. Most of them actually do: they tour, do promotion deals, and so on. Seling albums is mostly of interest to big content, since they are about the only ones truly profiting from that.

Th arrival of the web has shaken up the industry, and has pretty much taken out the need for the middle man (big content). What you are arguing for is that a law that was created to promote the arts and sciences is turned into a law that serves but one purpose: to sustain the outdated and failing business model of big content - no matter how many freedoms we have to give up to do so.

If cars running on fossil fuels ever become superseded by cleaner vehicles, do you also want the government to enact laws that forces us to keep buying petrol so the poor oil companies who didn't adapt to this change don't suffer too many losses? Markets change, and if a company or even an entire industry doesn't adapt, they die.

That's how it should be. Sadly, clueless people seem to think that somehow, the entertainment industry should be exempt from the normal workings of the market that everyone else has to deal with. Why don't we enact laws to protect video stores now that Netflix is here? Why don't we enact a tax on internet use to protect newspapers? Why don't we tax electric car owners for the damage they are causing to oil companies?

Reply Parent Score: 2

sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

Selling records only makes up an incredibly small portion of an artists' income.


But it does make them income... which means you are depriving them of income, no matter how small... except your not depriving them by not acquiring it, your depriving them by acquiring it without paying for it... which is theft.

If they want to provide with free music - and I DO believe they should - it should be their choice.


The simple fact of the matter is that if artists want to make money, they have to work for it.


Recording an album isn't work? It take a lot of people's time, effort and money to record music. Go read a few blogs of musicians and studio engineers discussing the recording of music, then see if you still want to argue that it isn't work.

Seling (sic) albums is mostly of interest to big content, since they are about the only ones truly profiting from that.


THIS one I agree with you on. Artists get far too small a share of recording sales, which drive artists towards making music that will sell millions, and we wind up with 99% garbage on the airwaves. But if you were to remove Big Content from the picture, why is an artist not allowed to say what they've created is worth something?


Th arrival of the web has shaken up the industry, and has pretty much taken out the need for the middle man (big content). What you are arguing for is that a law that was created to promote the arts and sciences is turned into a law that serves but one purpose: to sustain the outdated and failing business model of big content - no matter how many freedoms we have to give up to do so.


Sorry, no, that wasn't what I was arguing, and I am sorry if it came off that way. I think that by a combination of copyright law (the original, not the mangled mess it's become) and licenses like the Creative Commons, we get a climate both healthy for the artist AND the public, and Big Content loses their control.

I'm saying we need a system where everybody (except big content) wins.

Reply Parent Score: 1

_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

there are unfortunately such taxes in some countries. Like France.

Reply Parent Score: 2

viton Member since:
2005-08-09

You are one of the many, many people Stone referred to as "brainwashed". Selling records only makes up an incredibly small portion of an artists' income.


And to continue your logic, programmers must make the money not from selling their products, but from some other sources?

Reply Parent Score: 2

MyNameIsNot4Letter Member since:
2011-01-09

[...] Sadly, clueless people seem to think that somehow, the entertainment industry should be exempt from the normal workings of the market that everyone else has to deal with. Why don't we enact laws to protect video stores now that Netflix is here? Why don't we enact a tax on internet use to protect newspapers? [...]


Sadly, we already have this tax in Denmark. Ever empty medium i buy, i have to pay big-content-tax because it CAN be used to infringe on someone's copyright. For access to the internet i have to pay "media license," to support another dying medium, public service television.

/Uni

Reply Parent Score: 1

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Some of the folks around here are under the delusion that in order to be a true "artist" one must go without payment (as if that were EVER the case), and that those that take payment aren't real "artists", they are instead "sell-outs".

Reply Parent Score: 3

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

[/q]

Now let's hold on a minute. Even going back centuries ago when copyright term was still short - hell, even before copyright - artists were compensated for their works in order to make a living. Composers such as Beethoven and painters such as Leonardo Da Vinci were commissioned to create works of art. These artists were able to make a living, which gave them the freedom to create their art as they see it.
[/q]

This simply isn't true. Artists had to produce what their patron wanted. Artists and musicians were nearly always low status and poorly paid.

Reply Parent Score: 2