9 ms·

Can someone explain without using "magic happens here" arguments how an author, musician, etc. would build a portfolio of assets from which they could attain an

• qfx3 11y ago
  There was art and there were artists long before copyright. Michelangelo, Mozart and Byron were anything but buskers. Public performances and patronage are time-tested, but nowadays artists have additional options like online fundraising and donations, as well as a far greater reach through social networks, amplifying the effect of all of the above. However, it is true that even the most famous artists might have to get used to their art "merely" affording them a comfortable life, instead of making them obscenely wealthy like it does through license sales today.
  • api 11y ago
    All those artists had patrons, a high end form of busking for tips, and none had any power in that relationship at all. It's never been easy for an artist to make a living, but taking rights away just makes it harder. An artist can give away their work now if they want. You are talking about removing the other options, and I don't see much upside that outweighs the downside. Only big capital really benefits. It's also hypocritical for engineers, who have the potential to become obscenely wealthy, to criticize others for this while advocating labor busting policies. Do people actually want a world where only a tiny handful of technicians and supercapitalists have wealth? All I see here is elitism. This is not a progressive idea. Please stop promoting it as if it is.
    • mordocai 11y ago
      Engineers only have the ability to become obscenely wealthy through business, not really through being an engineer. Artists can do the same. Both artists and engineers can become wealthy through this method if copyright didn't exist. Also, the point the article is making is that the current system is the one in which "only big capital really benefits". I have not seen you make any counterpoints to this claim, just an assertion that it is in fact the opposite.
    • chongli 11y ago
      Do people actually want a world where only a tiny handful of technicians and supercapitalists have wealth? All I see here is elitism. You're talking about the world we live in right now. The discussion here is about taking away the power that these "supercapitalists" already have.
      • anigbrowl 11y ago
        No it isn't! The discussion here is about taking away the only asset that non-super-capitalists who work in the arts have, and that's the saleable property interest in the work we create.
        • TuringTest 11y ago
          The Internet has already taken that asset away. What we are talking is about super-capitalists trying to break the Internet to keep their old bussiness model working, instead of inventing new models on the new efficient distribution channel. I believe a new model that worked on protecting attribution of the work rather than copy-rights would be more adequate to protect authors from having their work exploited by large publishers without giving anything away in return.
    • TuringTest 11y ago
      > none had any power in that relationship at all. As compared to the power that authors have in their relationship with publishers now? At least the relation of an artist with their patron was on a one-on-one personal level; they could influence their patrons and convince them to have their way on an emotional level. Try that when you're paid by a corporation. I predict a future of performing arts for writers as well. Roleplaying games show us that doing such thing is possible, and creative platforms for storytelling will allow artists to perform live experiences for an audience. "Experience builder" may very well be the future of what we call "writers" now, and the media that will allow it already exists; in that media, it's not unreasonable to think that people will pay to have the experience tailored for them in real time, even if recorded copies of such experience are then instantly distributed for free to the world.
• kiba 11y ago
  I am not arguing that copyright is perfect as is, but so far I see nothing better that allows artists to actually eat. In a post copyright world, big capital would still own brands, distribution channels, networks, etc. It would actually be great for them: they could now monetize artists work any way they wanted without paying the artist anything. Google, Apple, Amazon, etc. would be big winners. If you count an artist sharing his work via CC-BY and making a living, then yes, it already happened. http://www.peppercarrot.com/ http://www.peppercarrot.com/ Now, you might disagree with the example as evidence of a workable post-copyright world, you still need to explain how this artist and others manage to thrive anyway.
• chongli 11y ago
  Working for tips is not a valid answer. On what basis do you dismiss an entire category of business models? Youtube, Kickstarter, Patreon: people are already living off of this model. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that many of these people derive no benefit from copyright law right now; it certainly isn't helping them "actually eat".
  • api 11y ago
    To build a solid financial foundation, you have to own something. Otherwise you are a service employee. Take away copyright and only the owners of financial and physical capital can own anything. This is the "everyone is now a service worker" feudal world. The models you describe depend on copyright. It's why I can't go to Kickstarter, copy all the work of a successful artist, and then do my own fund raisers and take their proceeds. I argue so hard against this stuff because I used to believe it. Then I thought it through.
    • chongli 11y ago
      The models you describe depend on copyright. No, they don't. Many of these artists receive their patronage and give all of their work away for free. It's why I can't go to Kickstarter, copy all the work of a successful artist, and then do my own fund raisers and take their proceeds. Why don't you try that and see how it works? Society operates on more than laws, it also operates on norms. Doing what you just described would make you a social outcast and open you up to widespread social retaliation; the legal system need not apply.
      • archgrove 11y ago
        This model still depends on copyright. Yes, they give it away for free, but that's _cost freedom_, not _copyright freedom_. Without copyright, I can take all their works, strip off their name, put them on my own site, add a tip jar of my own and take their donations.
        • kiba 11y ago
• williamcotton 11y ago
  Exactly! Copyright gives writers and other creators of intellectual property the ability to function in a market economy based on top of a legal system of private property, contract and tort. Copyright lets people create capital that can continue to work for them after the initial labor, much like how a corporation works. Being a laborer is being in an unfortunate position in a capitalist society. This is why democratic capitalist societies are also very interested in giving ownership to as many people as possible. Getting as many people invested in our systems of law and order helps it to survive.
• Glyptodon 11y ago
  "Tips," as you seem to classify everything from Kickstarter to Patronage to Patreon, and fan interaction are the most reasonable means by which an artist might derive a living. Artists who can't derive a living by these means should look into alternate means of making a living. Success as an artist is not an entitlement. Creative people who make creative works will succeed in proportion to their ability to be valued by society or a subset of it, not because society can correctly identify any objective or intrinsic value in any particular creative work. It's also not comparable to the "wealthy engineers" you malign. If engineers worked under the same terms as modern copyright never a road or bridge or factory would be built because the next hundred years of paying royalties to all the engineers on top of construction costs would make it impossible to build anything. Frankly, most engineers give up the rights to their creative works in order to be employed at all and recognize that they can't expect to make a living for their entire life just by designing one awesome bridge or skyscraper.
  • sosborn 11y ago
    > Success as an artist is not an entitlement. Neither is unlimited access to a person's artistic creation.
    • Nadya 11y ago
      Which contributes to their success through free marketing and word-of-mouth. "Who are you listening to?" is a common question people ask when they hear music they like that someone else is listening to. Which, if they hadn't pirated that persons music they might not be listening to and the answer would be a different artist. From an economic sense I've never understood trying to prevent piracy. I can understand not encouraging it or even encouraging buying the product but not acting like piracy is a heinous crime that robs them. My favorite example is illegal anime fansubs that open up an entire foreign market to something they otherwise would not participate in. From purchasing merchandise (figurines, dakimakuras, DVD's, soundtracks, etc.) to telling their friends about the anime. It's business that these studios would otherwise not get and so many fansub groups are tolerated or even hired as official translators for studios. This sort of black/white standpoints on piracy do more harm to both sides in many cases...people shooting themselves in the foot because they don't understand that potentially free marketing brings in more money than the imaginary "lost sale" (who says the person who pirated would even buy your product to begin with?)
• jasode 11y ago
  >arguments how an author, musician, etc. would build a portfolio of assets from which they could attain any measure of financial security in this world? As I'm looking for passive income from copyright royalties, I'm biased but I will attempt to explain the counterargument as fairly as I can. I've read many philosophical arguments about copyrights. Some arguments against copyrights start from a different premise than you do. Your question assumes the premise that the world "owes" artists the benefit of copyright. No matter how strongly you feel about that, if you want to engage with the other side, you have to temporarily suspend that premise. The counterargument says that copyrights for music, art, text is a quirk made possible by technology (Gutenberg press, vinyl & CD replication, etc.) instead of a fundamental economic right. They can point to other areas of creativity that don't enjoy copyrights and yet new ideas flourish: Andrew Wiles spends years solving Fermat's Last Theorem. He will get no copyright or royalties from that breakthrough. He does get bragging rights. So pure abstract mathematicians can't get rich off of theorem proving and buy mansions and sports cars like Michael Jackson. A chef or bartender inventing a new recipe for food or mixed drink can't copyright their ingredient list. (They can keep it secret but "trade secrets" such as CocaCola formula is a different concept from copyrights.) An interesting economic situation is poetry. Poetry is copyrighted but hardly anyone can make a living at it. Poets have day jobs such as a professor of English at a University. The royalties from poetry books are miniscule. If they give poetry recitals, it's usually performed for free. Does the world "owe" poets a living such that they don't have to moonlight as an English professor? Well, so far, that's what they've been doing. They can't buy mansions and sports cars, or even a middle class living with poetry royalties but they continue to write them. One of the greatest poems/stories of all time is The Iliad and that never had copyright protection. What would a world without copyrights for musicians look like? Probably the non-performing musicians would have to moonlight with day jobs, or get sponsorships (patrons, crowdfunding). Etc. That scenario looks "worse" because all of us discussing it were born after copyrights have been entrenched. Like I said, we'd to have erase that premise to imagine it differently. I find the counterarguments fascinating but I continue with pursuing copyright royalties because that's the current configuration we live in.
  • mordocai 11y ago
    Off topic, but I find I do what you described with a lot of things. For instance, I am generally on the anti-copyright (and anti or less patents, at least for software) side but I will still take full advantage of the current system. I also think tax loopholes are rather unfair, but I take full advantage of them. It's an interesting conflict between principles and pragmatism.
• Suncho 11y ago
  Can someone explain without using "magic happens here" arguments how an author, musician, etc. would build a portfolio of assets from which they could attain any measure of financial security in this world? No. They can't. But it's important to understand that they can't attain any measure of financial security even with copyright law in place. It just looks like they can. Only the superstars ever get financial security from copyrights. Writers would have it even worse than musicians, since at least musicians can tour. When was the last time you attended a live reading of a novel? Crowdfunding is another option. But I think it's useful to give up on the idea that artists will ever make any meaningful amount of money from selling their art after the fact. I am not arguing that copyright is perfect as is, but so far I see nothing better that allows artists to actually eat. If we force artists to make art in order to be able to eat, isn't the system already broken? In a post copyright world, big capital would still own brands, distribution channels, networks, etc. It would actually be great for them: they could now monetize artists work any way they wanted without paying the artist anything. Google, Apple, Amazon, etc. would be big winners. Maybe. But you'd also see a lot of free distribution through BitTorrent, Popcorn Time etc. In order for Google, Apple, Amazon, etc. to make money, they'd have to be able to add some value on top of content distribution... value that can't easily be replicated for free. What we call "intellectual property" is really a public good. It's non-rival and non-exclusive in nature. This stuff is yet another hard right wing labor busting idea masquerading as something liberal and progressive. Maybe. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. This kind of thinking about intellectual property is what led me to re-examine the nature of labor in general. Is it reasonable for us to expect the labor market to provide sufficient income to consumers?
  • vitd 11y ago
    >If we force artists to make art in order to be able to eat, isn't the system already broken? Can you explain what you mean by that? I'm trying to put it in the perspective of other careers, and it doesn't make any sense to me. Like, "If we force doctors to heal in order to be able to eat, isn't the system already broken?" It doesn't sound broken. I'm a programmer. I have to program to eat. I can choose something else if I don't make it as a programmer, just as artists can. (And in fact, I do some art on the side, too.) But everyone has to contribute in some way to eat. (Well, unless they inherit a bunch of money, I guess.) Why is that worse for artists than anyone else? I think I'm missing some larger point, here. Sorry to sound dense.
• patcon 11y ago
  Possible explanation in my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10018387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10018387
• loceng 11y ago
  If you look at a current example, a lot of Buzzfeed's success seems to attributed by people to the crowdsourced work at Reddit - up-to-date and current trends and content is provided and filtered for them to easily digest and compile - especially photo content. Re: Google, Apple, Amazing, etc - In reality anyone who already has an organization or infrastructure to curate or the pool of funds to use and/or has the audience to promote to would be able to provide these services/do these tasks more efficiently. Is this bad though? IMHO it's only bad if an unbalanced or unfair amount of resources are made or left with an organization or group of people - leaving others at a deficit and potentially suffering instead of all of this productivity increasing abundance and quality of life for everyone. You could apply same thought exercise to taxes. Systems are only bad when there are frictions and inefficiencies allowed to exist to benefit one group more than another, otherwise you can create roles to reduce unavoidable frictions. If an artist was able to travel the world freely (literally at no cost), the only real issue then is having space available for such an event - so then you'd have people who curate those spaces letting the artist in or not or based on criteria of how many fans they have in that part of the world, and perhaps it would become a celebration of that artist and his work, instead of simply entertainment or the artist trying to make enough to survive; sounds a lot like museums, why not more of this? Why not more startup co-working spaces that are social and not isolating and support creativity and connection? There are of course ecosystems evolving that have more and more of this, culture breaking through systems of control and pressure - I'd like to see the world and cities designed as platforms to facilitate this kind of life - and not only because investment money is heavily funnelling into specific cities. It's all about distributing resources to get tasks done - governance. Whenever you remove friction then productivity can increase - however if you allow oil to be burned until we pollute and damage our ecosystem to be so unstable as life is threatened then that is bad governance. Determining who gets access to resources needed for different types of creativity will be the interesting piece to figure out..