4 ms·
Exactly. Don't creative people always push the idea that creative people have to create? That it's a matter of what stops us, not what is required for us to d
by michaelchisari 15y ago
Exactly. Don't creative people always push the idea that creative people have to create? That it's a matter of what stops us, not what is required for us to do it.
Plenty of artists, many of which spend years honing their craft, not only don't require copyright, but operate in environments which actively work against any kind of ownership (graffiti artists, for example).
- swombat 15y agoTo be fair, a great many works of art were created by artists who were commissioned to make them for money. Dostoievsky wrote The Idiot to pay some gambling debt. Da Vinci and Michelangelo and the other Masters of that age did all their work for wealthy patrons. The reason why Victorian novels are so long is partly to do with the fact that authors were paid by the page. An argument can be made that at least some great works of art would not have existed were it not for the profit motive. Would someone like Mark Twain still have written books if he could not have made a penny out of it? Probably yes, but probably not as many.
- michaelchisari 15y agoa great many works of art were created by artists who were commissioned to make them for money. Isn't that exactly what people are suggesting as an alternative to copyright? This isn't an argument against receiving money for your craft (I would argue that "profit motive" is inaccurate), but an argument against a legal construct which allows you to continually benefit in perpetuity via artificial constraints. Would someone like Mark Twain still have written books if he could not have made a penny out of it? Didn't Mark Twain marry into wealth specifically so he could write without any monetary worries?