4 ms·
No, it's not of "total cultural value". That's a bullshit term. It's about the artists first and society second. The Dragostei Din Tei video didn't use the ent
by unalone 17y ago
No, it's not of "total cultural value". That's a bullshit term. It's about the artists first and society second.
The Dragostei Din Tei video didn't use the entire song. It make a lot of people who wanted to hear the rest of the song go out and buy it. The Gray Album is shadier, but it was remixing a much older album, and remixes aren't directly presenting what already existed. They're making some kind of creative alteration. Even then, I don't think it's wrong to assume that perhaps the original artists deserve some compensation. Not a ridiculous compensation that puts the remixer out of a job, but suggesting they have no rights to the final work is similarly silly.
The solution, as Marco writes here, is for more musicians to adapt to Creative Commons, so that people can use their works and contribute to that remix culture. The artists who're fine with that, and I think most of them are, can permit their works to be taken, and the ones that aren't can miss out. But it's their choice, not ours. Suggesting that all those artists only exist to contribute to culture is retarded.
- barrkel 17y agoI believe that if you ever find the time to actually look into it, you'll find that most artists do not do what they do because of "compensation", but because they love it, because of the social and cultural value they see it creating, and because of the effects it has on other people. In other words, what you describe as "retarded" is in fact one of the primary motivations of artists. I speak from my own experience of growing up in a home with a theatre actress / community theatre director mother and songwriter / playwright father, and their wider social network. An intellectually stimulating but extremely frugal existence.
- unalone 17y agoI'm an artist myself. Otherwise I'd have avoided this whole discussion. I like having some idea of what I'm talking about. I make art primarily because I love the creation, and I absolutely love when my work creates a response in somebody else. But that's my love for my work and for those people, not for a vaguer society. I could see myself being really pleased over a lip dub of a song of mine. I could also see myself hating that something I'd made had leaked out without my receiving anything for the trouble. I mean, if I'm out to make a living with my work, then having it taken without compensation might not be what I'm looking for. But the point I was trying to make was that it would be my choice either way, that the work I make serves me first and society second.