Joss Stone on Piracy: "I think it's great. I love it."
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?
E-mail Print r 15   · Read More · 172 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/iq7
Thread beginning with comment 458602
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

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.


Yes. And if we democratise science, then all research into how the universe got created would be stopped, by the healthy majority that is religious.
There are places where meritocracy yields better results.
Art was forever a democratic thing, there has always been the pop art segment*. It's just lately it's brining those "artists" millions, instead of their deserved pennies**.

* - That is what "cheap art" is. The one that can't stand the test of time. How many 18th century tavern songs are still well known these days? And that was pop art of the day!

** - Yes, there I said it. Most, if not all, popular musicians, actors are worth pennies and tips. Though I do gladly pay for a good show/performance and I will buy the odd album on the net.

This is the end of discussion, for this is my personal view on the matter.

Reply Parent Score: 2