3 ms·
No. Don't mean to be ugly but when it comes down to it, it's not needed. It makes life more pleasant but isn't necessary for survival. Which means it's somew
by tenebrisalietum 6y ago
No. Don't mean to be ugly but when it comes down to it, it's not needed. It makes life more pleasant but isn't necessary for survival.
Which means it's somewhat out of balance for an IP protection scheme to exist that allows an entity to perform/create a work of art once and then sit back and collect on it for the next 150+ years.
Work once, get paid once. Musician? Venue commissions you, you get paid. Visual artist? Someone commissions you, you get paid.
Anything else is a benefit to one person or company at the expense of everyone else. A limited such benefit, per the original idea of copyright, is fine if society wants to encourage the arts. At what point is society oversaturated with "creatives" though?