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 460359
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Matt Giacomini
Member since:
2005-07-06

Yet today, we have people who want 'arts' funding and trying to make art a regular job.


I don't think this thread is based on whether people should get government funding for their hobbies, but whether your works should have some protection of copyright.

Edited 2011-01-31 18:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Yamin Member since:
2006-01-10

It's part of the same package.

It's weather or not all 'work' needs to be monetized.

How it's 'monetized' is immaterial to the desire for it to be monetized.

I read the interview... and Coppola is more along the lines of not monetizing everything.

"I make films. No one tells me what to do. But I make the money in the wine industry. You work another job and get up at five in the morning and write your script. "

"“Try to disconnect the idea of cinema with the idea of making a living and money.” Because there are ways around it."

I don't think anyone is saying artists shouldn't make money... but neither should you focus on monetizing every aspect of your work.

He makes the point that before recorded music, artists would have to travel and people would pay to see them. This is still largely the case today. Whether or not an artist is paid for every song sold, every time it is heard... is immaterial to the reality that a successful artist can make a living doing live shows.

He more or less tosses out an idea. That's what I'm doing.

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't have copyright or anything... It's obviously a question of what kind of copyright, what kind of enforcement... but too often the discussion revolved around monetizing all work.

And today... the restrictions needed to 'monetize' all work are far too intrusive in terms of government that it should cause us to reevaluate.

As I said in another post... it's a little impractical today as we don't live in times of cheap existence... but maybe we should be looking at thing differently.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

He makes the point that before recorded music, artists would have to travel and people would pay to see them. This is still largely the case today. Whether or not an artist is paid for every song sold, every time it is heard... is immaterial to the reality that a successful artist can make a living doing live shows.


Whether or not an artist is paid for every live performance... is immaterial to the reality that a successful artist can make a living selling records.

I don't really have the time to go to a concert in the morning during the drive to work, so I listen to recorded music (purchased mp3's.) They're more valuable to me than a live concert actually, even though I like those as well.

Artists have always been capable of self releasing, but they don't. Why? If freely realeasing their album could get them more exposure and therefore more concerts, why don't they do that? If that's where they make their money. Now we're back to marketing and investment. Releasing for free doesn't give you exposure unless you've already made money or are already famous. You need marketing, which costs money. Which is why I shutter to say it, but big music deserves a small fee for the marketing they provide. Then a small fee for the musician. Then Amazon or iTunes fee for making my download experience easy etc.

How those fee's breakdown can be an issue. I don't think it should be 62%/29%/9% Label/Store/Artist, which it generally is by my brief internet search. However free doesn't cover the costs to produce and market the music.

Reply Parent Score: 2