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 460308
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

A copyright term should expire after about 7 years. This forces creators to come up with new stuff, and thus promotes the arts. Especially in our fast-developing society, copyright terms of ten million yonks make absolutely zero sense. Turnover in the marketplace has become way too fast for that. It'd be like demanding a speed limit of 15 km/h because cars made in 1913 weren't safe enough to travel any faster.

Reply Parent Score: 2

kuraegomon Member since:
2009-01-05

Why? The 75-year number was to allow an artist to profit from their labours throughout their lifetimes. Again, if that work of art is being actively sought out by new consumers, then it has continuing value, and the artist deserves continued compensation. I agree that there should be some kind of limit, but let's just agree to disagree that 7 years should be it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Cymro Member since:
2005-07-07

Fixing corrupt systems like the music industry that exploit artists is what matters, not your romantic notion of free art. That only punishes anyone with creative talent even further.

> "This forces creators..."

The creators aren't the problem here. You're lumbering genuine artists with problems created by pin-striped industry spivs.

High-profile mega-rich artists are a tiny minority, but said marketeers are happy to push a few artists while screwing everyone else over.

Cutting the copyright length to 7 years will only make the industry churn out more short-term money-makers like the X-Factor teeny chart crap. Genuine artists once again bear the brunt. Any artist who makes it big later through years of hard graft, will never make any money on the back catalogue they worked so hard to assemble. Meanwhile multinationals are free to feast on their back catalogue for their TV adverts. As if the work wasn't devalued enough. Yeah, nice plan!

Reply Parent Score: 6

re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

"A copyright term should expire after about 7 years. This forces creators to come up with new stuff, and thus promotes the arts. Especially in our fast-developing society, copyright terms of ten million yonks make absolutely zero sense. Turnover in the marketplace has become way too fast for that. It'd be like demanding a speed limit of 15 km/h because cars made in 1913 weren't safe enough to travel any faster."

I agree generally agree with the idea, however I actually think the artist should be able to negotiate the terms of their copyright with their label.

Reply Parent Score: 2