5 ms·

> Likewise, the quality of work produced with the economic incentive of copyright tends to be better, often much better, than what is produced based on other fu

> Likewise, the quality of work produced with the economic incentive of copyright tends to be better, often much better, than what is produced based on other funding models or a voluntary basis... (Some people may disagree, but I consider this point so obvious by now that it's rarely worth engaging on.) Sorry you find this tiresome. The history of popular and culturally relevant music can be seen as basically a history of uncompensated outsider art becoming coopted and repackaged into dull derivatives. You may find, for example, Elvis clearly superior to the mostly uncompensated African American traditions he pulled from, but that's hardly a position so universal as to be obvious. I know you caveated with especially things people don't do for fun, but basically all art attracts people doing it for art's sake. > That seems like decent evidence that no-one has found a reliably better way to incentivize creating and distributing new works so far The overwhelming majority of artists will never see any return for their works. There is such a long tail of garage bands making music for fun that it's hard to imagine the need for financial incentives to encourage greater saturation of that industry. Financial incentives don't encourage great art, they only incentivize commercial art. There are overlaps, but we can't pretend those are both the same thing.

Silhouette 10y ago
Financial incentives don't encourage great art, they only incentivize commercial art. There are overlaps, but we can't pretend those are both the same thing. I don't entirely agree. Appreciation of art is subjective by nature, but the way we usually quantify value in our society is financial. A work that is popular will be more financially successful. A work that does not have such broad appeal but which is worth a great deal to a smaller group can also be successful. So unless you want to make some argument that art that is neither widely appreciated nor strongly appreciated by a few can still be great, I don't think the concepts you mentioned are as independent as you're suggesting. I would also point out that copyright incentivizes the creation and distribution of utilitarian creative works, not just artistic ones. In some respects this is the more valuable side of copyright, because as you point out, with artistic work there will probably always be some level of creativity whether or not it's compensated. With more practical works, say business accounting software or a high school science textbook, there's much less incentive to create the works without some form of money or other compensation involved. But even in the case of artistic work, I think it's fair to say that a successful professionally edited and published novel is likely to be better writing on average than most popular fan fiction. There are some impressive amateur video productions on YouTube these days, but no-one is making a hobby show with the production values of Game of Thrones. A few potentially decent games have achieved quite impressive funding through Kickstarter, but some of them still haven't actually been shipped years later, and typically they're multiple orders of magnitude below what the budget for a modern AAA title. You can draw similar comparisons in most fields covered by copyright, whether artistic or simply utilitarian. Certainly not all commercially produced works backed by copyright are successful. Copyright doesn't guarantee anyone a financial return on their hard work. However, it does provide a direct incentive to produce better works and distribute them more widely, because the more successful a work is, the greater the return it will generate. The only two fields I can immediately think of where serious money is made from creative works but probably would still be made if those works weren't subject to copyright are live performances and software created to support something else rather than for sale in its own right. Even then, not everyone protected by copyrights would necessarily benefit; for example, a band or orchestra might bring in a lot of money for a live concert, but probably someone else wrote the music or songs. So again, the financial incentive to write the best music comes from wanting as many performances of that music as possible to be enjoyed, and thus to maximise the royalties.
- nkurz 10y ago
  Appreciation of art is subjective by nature, but the way we usually quantify value in our society is financial. A work that is popular will be more financially successful. A work that does not have such broad appeal but which is worth a great deal to a smaller group can also be successful. So unless you want to make some argument that art that is neither widely appreciated nor strongly appreciated by a few can still be great, I don't think the concepts you mentioned are as independent as you're suggesting. It's good to see different world views expressed clearly, but yours is incredibly foreign to me. For me, the number of dollars that someone else with much more money than I have is willing to pay for an object has almost nothing to with its greatness as art. I instinctively react against the idea as if you were saying "How can love between two people be considered great unless one party is paying the other a large sum to stay in the relationship?" When 'brownbat' says commercial art, I presume he means art that is created because there is known demand from those with the money to pay for it. And when you say "unless you want to make some argument that art that is neither widely appreciated nor strongly appreciated by a few can still be great", this seems like it is totally ignoring the appreciation those without the ability to pay. Why should we allow greatness of art be defined only by those who have accumulated a surplus of money? Sure, greatness is subjective, but when it comes to art, does it possibly make sense to restrict greatness to the subset of art appreciated by the rich? I would agree that art cannot be great if it is not "strongly appreciated" by at least someone, but can't it be subjectively great for that someone even if they can't afford to pay much for it? The difference in our world view might be that I see "appreciative but unable to pay" as the default state of the majority of the world, and thus wouldn't think of restricting great art to that which is also financially lucrative, nor quantifying it by summing the product of the audience member's degree of appreciation times ability to pay.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    When I was talking about strong appreciation by smaller groups, I wasn't thinking of the kind of works that only a privileged rich elite can afford. Certainly there are people who go to art auctions and buy paintings for millions, so I suppose that would be an extreme case of the same principle. However, when I wrote my previous post I was more thinking about products in niche markets. An academic text by an expert in a narrow field would presumably appeal to fewer people than a Harry Potter novel, but to those who are working in the field, it might be very valuable to see the insights of an authority on the subject. Thus it becomes viable to publish texts that cost far more than a novel for each copy, if there are enough people still willing to buy it at that price. There are parallels in other niche markets, say a relatively obscure music style where fans are still willing to pay for recordings by a band they enjoy, or specialist software that is only useful to a relatively small number of businesses but is so useful to those businesses that it can sell for thousands of dollars per user. Are those specialist texts greater works than Harry Potter because they sell for more? Are those specialist software products greater works than the latest Grand Theft Auto? I don't think that's necessarily the case. To me, a popular work that brings happiness to many people can be great, even if the highbrow brigade would look down on it and say it wasn't very good. When they've brought as many smiles to as many children as JK Rowling, their opinion on that subject will mean something to me. :-) I want to close by coming back to the idea that value is often subjective. I am certainly not implying that to any given person a work can only be great if it makes a lot of money, just as in your own example of two people being in love, only two people's opinions on the greatness of the relationship really matter. I am just saying that in the large, as an economic matter, judging a product by how much others consider it worth is one of the few relatively objective measures we have available.

Silhouette 10y ago

Financial incentives don't encourage great art, they only incentivize commercial art. There are overlaps, but we can't pretend those are both the same thing. I don't entirely agree. Appreciation of art is subjective by nature, but the way we usually quantify value in our society is financial. A work that is popular will be more financially successful. A work that does not have such broad appeal but which is worth a great deal to a smaller group can also be successful. So unless you want to make some argument that art that is neither widely appreciated nor strongly appreciated by a few can still be great, I don't think the concepts you mentioned are as independent as you're suggesting. I would also point out that copyright incentivizes the creation and distribution of utilitarian creative works, not just artistic ones. In some respects this is the more valuable side of copyright, because as you point out, with artistic work there will probably always be some level of creativity whether or not it's compensated. With more practical works, say business accounting software or a high school science textbook, there's much less incentive to create the works without some form of money or other compensation involved. But even in the case of artistic work, I think it's fair to say that a successful professionally edited and published novel is likely to be better writing on average than most popular fan fiction. There are some impressive amateur video productions on YouTube these days, but no-one is making a hobby show with the production values of Game of Thrones. A few potentially decent games have achieved quite impressive funding through Kickstarter, but some of them still haven't actually been shipped years later, and typically they're multiple orders of magnitude below what the budget for a modern AAA title. You can draw similar comparisons in most fields covered by copyright, whether artistic or simply utilitarian. Certainly not all commercially produced works backed by copyright are successful. Copyright doesn't guarantee anyone a financial return on their hard work. However, it does provide a direct incentive to produce better works and distribute them more widely, because the more successful a work is, the greater the return it will generate. The only two fields I can immediately think of where serious money is made from creative works but probably would still be made if those works weren't subject to copyright are live performances and software created to support something else rather than for sale in its own right. Even then, not everyone protected by copyrights would necessarily benefit; for example, a band or orchestra might bring in a lot of money for a live concert, but probably someone else wrote the music or songs. So again, the financial incentive to write the best music comes from wanting as many performances of that music as possible to be enjoyed, and thus to maximise the royalties.

nkurz 10y ago
Appreciation of art is subjective by nature, but the way we usually quantify value in our society is financial. A work that is popular will be more financially successful. A work that does not have such broad appeal but which is worth a great deal to a smaller group can also be successful. So unless you want to make some argument that art that is neither widely appreciated nor strongly appreciated by a few can still be great, I don't think the concepts you mentioned are as independent as you're suggesting. It's good to see different world views expressed clearly, but yours is incredibly foreign to me. For me, the number of dollars that someone else with much more money than I have is willing to pay for an object has almost nothing to with its greatness as art. I instinctively react against the idea as if you were saying "How can love between two people be considered great unless one party is paying the other a large sum to stay in the relationship?" When 'brownbat' says commercial art, I presume he means art that is created because there is known demand from those with the money to pay for it. And when you say "unless you want to make some argument that art that is neither widely appreciated nor strongly appreciated by a few can still be great", this seems like it is totally ignoring the appreciation those without the ability to pay. Why should we allow greatness of art be defined only by those who have accumulated a surplus of money? Sure, greatness is subjective, but when it comes to art, does it possibly make sense to restrict greatness to the subset of art appreciated by the rich? I would agree that art cannot be great if it is not "strongly appreciated" by at least someone, but can't it be subjectively great for that someone even if they can't afford to pay much for it? The difference in our world view might be that I see "appreciative but unable to pay" as the default state of the majority of the world, and thus wouldn't think of restricting great art to that which is also financially lucrative, nor quantifying it by summing the product of the audience member's degree of appreciation times ability to pay.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  When I was talking about strong appreciation by smaller groups, I wasn't thinking of the kind of works that only a privileged rich elite can afford. Certainly there are people who go to art auctions and buy paintings for millions, so I suppose that would be an extreme case of the same principle. However, when I wrote my previous post I was more thinking about products in niche markets. An academic text by an expert in a narrow field would presumably appeal to fewer people than a Harry Potter novel, but to those who are working in the field, it might be very valuable to see the insights of an authority on the subject. Thus it becomes viable to publish texts that cost far more than a novel for each copy, if there are enough people still willing to buy it at that price. There are parallels in other niche markets, say a relatively obscure music style where fans are still willing to pay for recordings by a band they enjoy, or specialist software that is only useful to a relatively small number of businesses but is so useful to those businesses that it can sell for thousands of dollars per user. Are those specialist texts greater works than Harry Potter because they sell for more? Are those specialist software products greater works than the latest Grand Theft Auto? I don't think that's necessarily the case. To me, a popular work that brings happiness to many people can be great, even if the highbrow brigade would look down on it and say it wasn't very good. When they've brought as many smiles to as many children as JK Rowling, their opinion on that subject will mean something to me. :-) I want to close by coming back to the idea that value is often subjective. I am certainly not implying that to any given person a work can only be great if it makes a lot of money, just as in your own example of two people being in love, only two people's opinions on the greatness of the relationship really matter. I am just saying that in the large, as an economic matter, judging a product by how much others consider it worth is one of the few relatively objective measures we have available.