3 ms·

If only we paid artists from a generous public support of the arts instead of making them scrimp and appeal to rich people or get pennies from individual stream

If only we paid artists from a generous public support of the arts instead of making them scrimp and appeal to rich people or get pennies from individual streamers we could do away with copyright and such filters completely. Musicians would be paid fairly and culture would flourish from not being confined by private entities that buy up the rights to how people express themselves.

missedthecue 6y ago
Could myself and everyone else quit our careers, open a SoundCloud, and start living off the public purse?
- tehjoker 6y ago
  When the Beetles were forming, they lived off the dole in the UK. The dole is credited with creating the music culture of the UK back in the 60s. I imagine that the way the system would work would be some kind of minimum disbursement for everyone, a higher level arts disbursment for people that are recognized to be working or emeritus musicians by their peers, and public contracts worth more money for particular projects. The ceiling of financial success might be lower, but many fewer musicians would be living on ramen for decades or speculating on GameStop out of frustration. The idea is create a system that is explicitly not winner-takes-all.
  - bluefirebrand 6y ago
    The dole is just welfare bud. The idea that fewer artists would be living the ramen lifestyle on welfare is goofy.
    - tehjoker 6y ago
      I'm not saying we should exactly replicate this system, I'm saying that a more basic version of it produced a cultural boom.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    Yes, but instead of making sure people's needs are met, have you considered giving the money to billionaires in the form of subsidies instead?
  - OJFord 6y ago
    > they lived off the dole in the UK. The dole is credited with creating FWIW, slightly odd to read 'dole' here, it's just a slang term for unemployment benefits/'jobseekers allowance'/PC term du jour. It's not some pedestal-worthy since-scrapped UBI or whatever. It's partly just fashion I suppose - for whatever reason (self-reinforced, I suppose) there was more 'pride' in it, that I can't really imagine in modern lyrics, but we do have 'drill' etc. proudly rapping about illegal activities and turf wars, which is similar I suppose, in the sense that an outsider thinks 'why is that something to sing about, keep it to yourself, surely'.
  - account42 6y ago
    > I imagine that the way the system would work would be some kind of minimum disbursement for everyone, a higher level arts disbursment for people that are recognized to be working or emeritus musicians by their peers, and public contracts worth more money for particular projects. I think it would be better to just have universal basic income for everyone (definitely not something restricted to music or even "art") and then have people find their own way if they want more on top of that. Highly regarded musicians can earn money without copyright just like anyone else: concerts, contract work, etc - just like everyone else.
- bluefirebrand 6y ago
  Right? I draw in my spare time sometimes can I get free money? Or does the art have to pass some kind of appeal test in this scenario.
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    As I stated in another comment, higher pay would be reserved for people recognized as practicing musicians by their peers. They could also earn money via performances like they do now, but they would be guaranteed a standard of living so long as they stayed current. For example, playing for free in a coffee shop, publishing videos on YouTube, producing sheet music, logging hours of practice etc would count towards currency. The idea being that society is richer for having cultivated talents and art regardless of whether a random person on the street is willing to pay for it. For your drawing, I guess it would depend on if you met the criteria of being "a practicing artist" by a rubric devised by artists. There might be lower or moderate levels on that scale that would e.g. cover supplies for talent development or initial forays into full-time practice.
    - smabie 6y ago
      How do you get recognized by practicing musicians? Could I generate white noise and pay them a cut of my future government hand outs so they would approve my white noise as music? Like honestly this idea is so amazingly terrible and full of an infinite number of holes I'm surprised anyone is arguing for it.
      - tehjoker 6y ago
        This is essentially how science grants work. The state awards some money for science in general and allots it to a few agencies to distribute, who then use practicing scientists to figure out who deserves it. How does anyone determine whom is a practitioner of a given art? It's some interplay between demonstrated objective skill and practitioner consensus. I'm proposing a gentler version of that that would be open to more people. What you are describing is corruption and would be illegal. I would also note that public support of the arts is nothing new. This is simply a generous expansion that qualitatively changes the relation of artists to markets and to the public. For example: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/hope-for-america/government-support-for-the-arts.html https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/hope-for-america/government-sup...
smabie 6y ago
The think the government paying artists directly would solve problems? It would create tons of problems and just end up as another broken system like everything else.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  The market breaks the government and then we blame the government so we'll cede more power to the market is another interpretation. Another interpretation is that the American government was designed to cater to elites from inception and one day we will fully democratize it and make it work for all of us.
jokethrowaway 6y ago
There is nothing bad with them having to work hard to make money. The offer for music is incredibly high and most people would prefer playing music over doing their job. The market is oversaturated and it gets worse and worse the more time passes (assuming a portion of people will be content with music from the past). It's normal that making music pays penny. Redistributing money would be terrible: the government would have another token to use to raise taxes (on which they can surely pocket a % for managing the work - free of market interference, so with zero competition or attention to waste) and the artist would have less of an incentive to make truly great pieces. That said, we don't need copyright laws or any other law which facilitate rich producers to get money or censor people. If we didn't have an expensive government upholding copyright laws, producers could just sell music with a non-redistribute contract. If someone breaks that contract they can go to a court and get a monetary compensation. If they're selling so many copies that they can't keep track of all the people sharing their music, consider it a market fee on excessive profits. The problem in our society is that rich producers can corrupt the government (and media / education: how many people consider copyright to be fair?) and get them to pass laws which give them extra power.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  Given our lopsided wealth distribution, why don't we redistribute and make our musicians more well to do? Another tax is really a great idea, it wouldn't solve everything but would help make a more equal society if it could be applied without corporations avoiding it. We already have enough production and even unemployment! We have more than enough spare labor capacity to let people try their hand at music more freely. In any case, I know several musicians and they essentially get repeatedly spit on by society, work for peanuts, and never give up on their mission even after sometimes becoming near suicidal. The current system is inhumane and starves us of non-commercial art.

missedthecue 6y ago

Could myself and everyone else quit our careers, open a SoundCloud, and start living off the public purse?

tehjoker 6y ago
When the Beetles were forming, they lived off the dole in the UK. The dole is credited with creating the music culture of the UK back in the 60s. I imagine that the way the system would work would be some kind of minimum disbursement for everyone, a higher level arts disbursment for people that are recognized to be working or emeritus musicians by their peers, and public contracts worth more money for particular projects. The ceiling of financial success might be lower, but many fewer musicians would be living on ramen for decades or speculating on GameStop out of frustration. The idea is create a system that is explicitly not winner-takes-all.
- bluefirebrand 6y ago
  The dole is just welfare bud. The idea that fewer artists would be living the ramen lifestyle on welfare is goofy.
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    I'm not saying we should exactly replicate this system, I'm saying that a more basic version of it produced a cultural boom.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  Yes, but instead of making sure people's needs are met, have you considered giving the money to billionaires in the form of subsidies instead?
- OJFord 6y ago
  > they lived off the dole in the UK. The dole is credited with creating FWIW, slightly odd to read 'dole' here, it's just a slang term for unemployment benefits/'jobseekers allowance'/PC term du jour. It's not some pedestal-worthy since-scrapped UBI or whatever. It's partly just fashion I suppose - for whatever reason (self-reinforced, I suppose) there was more 'pride' in it, that I can't really imagine in modern lyrics, but we do have 'drill' etc. proudly rapping about illegal activities and turf wars, which is similar I suppose, in the sense that an outsider thinks 'why is that something to sing about, keep it to yourself, surely'.
- account42 6y ago
  > I imagine that the way the system would work would be some kind of minimum disbursement for everyone, a higher level arts disbursment for people that are recognized to be working or emeritus musicians by their peers, and public contracts worth more money for particular projects. I think it would be better to just have universal basic income for everyone (definitely not something restricted to music or even "art") and then have people find their own way if they want more on top of that. Highly regarded musicians can earn money without copyright just like anyone else: concerts, contract work, etc - just like everyone else.
bluefirebrand 6y ago
Right? I draw in my spare time sometimes can I get free money? Or does the art have to pass some kind of appeal test in this scenario.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  As I stated in another comment, higher pay would be reserved for people recognized as practicing musicians by their peers. They could also earn money via performances like they do now, but they would be guaranteed a standard of living so long as they stayed current. For example, playing for free in a coffee shop, publishing videos on YouTube, producing sheet music, logging hours of practice etc would count towards currency. The idea being that society is richer for having cultivated talents and art regardless of whether a random person on the street is willing to pay for it. For your drawing, I guess it would depend on if you met the criteria of being "a practicing artist" by a rubric devised by artists. There might be lower or moderate levels on that scale that would e.g. cover supplies for talent development or initial forays into full-time practice.
  - smabie 6y ago
    How do you get recognized by practicing musicians? Could I generate white noise and pay them a cut of my future government hand outs so they would approve my white noise as music? Like honestly this idea is so amazingly terrible and full of an infinite number of holes I'm surprised anyone is arguing for it.
    - tehjoker 6y ago
      This is essentially how science grants work. The state awards some money for science in general and allots it to a few agencies to distribute, who then use practicing scientists to figure out who deserves it. How does anyone determine whom is a practitioner of a given art? It's some interplay between demonstrated objective skill and practitioner consensus. I'm proposing a gentler version of that that would be open to more people. What you are describing is corruption and would be illegal. I would also note that public support of the arts is nothing new. This is simply a generous expansion that qualitatively changes the relation of artists to markets and to the public. For example: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/hope-for-america/government-support-for-the-arts.html https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/hope-for-america/government-sup...

smabie 6y ago

The think the government paying artists directly would solve problems? It would create tons of problems and just end up as another broken system like everything else.

tehjoker 6y ago
The market breaks the government and then we blame the government so we'll cede more power to the market is another interpretation. Another interpretation is that the American government was designed to cater to elites from inception and one day we will fully democratize it and make it work for all of us.

jokethrowaway 6y ago

There is nothing bad with them having to work hard to make money. The offer for music is incredibly high and most people would prefer playing music over doing their job. The market is oversaturated and it gets worse and worse the more time passes (assuming a portion of people will be content with music from the past). It's normal that making music pays penny. Redistributing money would be terrible: the government would have another token to use to raise taxes (on which they can surely pocket a % for managing the work - free of market interference, so with zero competition or attention to waste) and the artist would have less of an incentive to make truly great pieces. That said, we don't need copyright laws or any other law which facilitate rich producers to get money or censor people. If we didn't have an expensive government upholding copyright laws, producers could just sell music with a non-redistribute contract. If someone breaks that contract they can go to a court and get a monetary compensation. If they're selling so many copies that they can't keep track of all the people sharing their music, consider it a market fee on excessive profits. The problem in our society is that rich producers can corrupt the government (and media / education: how many people consider copyright to be fair?) and get them to pass laws which give them extra power.

tehjoker 6y ago
Given our lopsided wealth distribution, why don't we redistribute and make our musicians more well to do? Another tax is really a great idea, it wouldn't solve everything but would help make a more equal society if it could be applied without corporations avoiding it. We already have enough production and even unemployment! We have more than enough spare labor capacity to let people try their hand at music more freely. In any case, I know several musicians and they essentially get repeatedly spit on by society, work for peanuts, and never give up on their mission even after sometimes becoming near suicidal. The current system is inhumane and starves us of non-commercial art.