3 ms·
The second paragraph is a strawman. It's not necessarily about the artists. Therefore your conclusion is flawed: > So the only possible argument left is that p
by posterboy 10y ago
The second paragraph is a strawman. It's not necessarily about the artists. Therefore your conclusion is flawed:
> So the only possible argument left is that publishers are somehow beneficial
If that argument would turn out to be strong enough, wouldn't it apply to the music industry as well? The comparison of napster and sci-hub would be as just as the comparison of the publishers.
- icebraining 10y agoIt's not a strawman, it was and is the main argument used, and that's exactly because it's the most meritorious. In fact, I've never seen the argument about protecting the publishers (ie, themselves). For example, from RIAA's website: Music theft happens everywhere, and it’s important for fans to help look out for illegal activity that damages the creative freedom of the artists you love. If you see pirated music—either online or in person—let us know here so we can better protect artists from illegal music sales.
- mirimir 10y agoExcept, traditionally, it's publishers who have screwed artists.
- posterboy 10y agoBut that quote is the strawman that you reverberate. It's not a strawman as much as the selection of artists to publish is creative and artistic in its own right. Then the relative distribution in relation to artistic input is still debatable, but out of scope if the question is, whether the publishers compensation should absolutely be forgone, and whether the publishers compensation alone is blown out of proportion compared to their work.