Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 31st Jan 2011 15:32 UTC
Multimedia, AV Francis Ford Coppola is one of the most prestigious and critically acclaimed directors in cinematographic history. He directed, among others, the Godfather trilogy and Apocalypse Now, and has won so many awards it's hard to keep track. In an interview with 99%, he touched on the subject of art and making money, and his musings are fascinating, and yet another indication that the times are changing in the content industry. "Who says artists have to make money?" Coppola wonders.
Thread beginning with comment 460301
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
kuraegomon
Member since:
2009-01-05

I really, REALLY dislike the inherent selfishness implying that we should be entertained without compensating the artist for their endeavours. I happen to think that copyright for original works of art makes a hell of a lot of sense.

In fact, I'm not even opposed to the idea of DRM. I just want more consumer protections against defunct providers, and more flexibility so I only need to pay once for media that I purchase. Fundamentally, if you derive benefit (pleasure) from something to the extent that you're prepared to seek it out, then that "something" has value, and the person who's laboured to create it deserves compensation.

Reply Score: 5

jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

The "free entertainment" theme has been around a LONG time. Consider radio and pre-cable TV as two, long-running examples.

Reply Parent Score: 2

kuraegomon Member since:
2009-01-05

Replace "free" by advertising-supported, or government-funded, and you might be actually making a factual statement. TANSTAAFL

Reply Parent Score: 3

westlake Member since:
2010-01-07

The "free entertainment" theme has been around a LONG time. Consider radio and pre-cable TV as two, long-running examples.
<p>
Broadcast radio and TV has three direct sources of funding: advertising, taxes, and charitable donations.

Donations of content ready-to-air and not dead-on-arrival comes from the same sources.

Talent and production values do not come cheap.

The sponsor always expects a return on his investment.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Fundamentally, if you derive benefit (pleasure) from something to the extent that you're prepared to seek it out, then that "something" has value, and the person who's laboured to create it deserves compensation.


Of course he does. However, not to the extent that it becomes detrimental to the promotion of arts and sciences - as copyright today has clearly become.

Reply Parent Score: 3

kuraegomon Member since:
2009-01-05

Again, please note the title of my original reply. BTW, I should have gotten around to saying that I completely agree that different rules should probably apply to scientific research - _especially_ that paid for by public funds.

Big Content (and the egregiously corrupt lobbying that they're allowed to get away with) is the problem, not the concept of copyright itself. Again, modern copyright law is the lifeblood of the independent artist. Fix the (often illegal) sway over the system exerted by the large media conglomerates, and stick with the original 75-year (or whatever) copyright limits, and we're probably good on the entertainment front. Scientific publications should be a separate case, with a separate solution.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I really, REALLY dislike the inherent selfishness implying that we should be entertained without compensating the artist for their endeavours


A lot of people have hobbies they don't get paid for. A lot of people get paid very little for their hobbies so they have to have a another job to support it. Why should artists be different? Want to make money? Cut your hair and get a real job.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Cymro Member since:
2005-07-07

...like an investment banker or an oil company PR man.

There's no bigger cancerous drain on society than someone with scruffy hair who makes art for a living.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, but the real issue is very few artists DO make anything from their art, only a FEW do and the promoters are the one's who make the vast majority of THAT money as well.

Copyright law is fine as long as the corporations aren't given some sort of advantage by it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

If you happen to produce something that people want to buy that is a real business and a very real form of income ... whether you like it or not.

Reply Parent Score: 3

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

I happen to think that copyright for original works of art makes a hell of a lot of sense.


No one said anything different. Copyright has its uses.

Fundamentally, if you derive benefit (pleasure) from something to the extent that you're prepared to seek it out, then that "something" has value, and the person who's laboured to create it deserves compensation.


Nobody's arguing that. But should they be compensated until the end of time for a single piece of work? Should future "artists" be deprived from building on the previous generations' work (copyright terms so long nothing ever goes into the public domain)? Should a single piece of "art" be enough for a person to live on for the rest of their life, and possibly down through three generations of their family?

Reply Parent Score: 5