3 ms·

> No content would be produced if nobody was compensated for it. This is not true. Many if not most artists create art because they enjoy it. What is true is

> No content would be produced if nobody was compensated for it. This is not true. Many if not most artists create art because they enjoy it. What is true is that middle men like publishers and record labels wouldn’t exist if nobody paid for content. Coincidentally, they are also the ones who push the lie that nobody would make content if they weren’t paid.

krapp 4y ago
>Many if not most artists create art because they enjoy it. Why is it so common to assume that no artist who is compensated for their work creates art because they enjoy it? You're presenting a false dichotomy. Quality content takes time, effort and money, even when you love what you're doing. Every creative industry is littered with the corpses of the careers of brilliant, passionate artists who couldn't afford to live on goodwill alone. Compensation is what allows artists the freedom and capability to do what they love.
- account42 4y ago
  You are shifting the goalpoasts. The assertion was that "No content would be produced if nobody was compensated for it." which is undeniably false since there has always been content produced without compensation. I don't think many people will deny that compensation encourages more creation. That is in fact the basis for copyright (at least in the US) - to romote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. But that does not mean that the current copyright scheme is the best way of achieving more creation. In many ways it stifles creation as much as it encourages it. Yes, we need to make it so that those who create can afford to live. But why do we need to so heavily restrict everyone elses rights to share and then throw public funds into enforcement of that insanity in order to achieve that? Really, we should make it so that everyone can affort to live instead and encourage creation via public and community funding or private patronage directly instead of doing this copyright dance where middlemen profit off our shared culture.

krapp 4y ago

>Many if not most artists create art because they enjoy it. Why is it so common to assume that no artist who is compensated for their work creates art because they enjoy it? You're presenting a false dichotomy. Quality content takes time, effort and money, even when you love what you're doing. Every creative industry is littered with the corpses of the careers of brilliant, passionate artists who couldn't afford to live on goodwill alone. Compensation is what allows artists the freedom and capability to do what they love.

account42 4y ago
You are shifting the goalpoasts. The assertion was that "No content would be produced if nobody was compensated for it." which is undeniably false since there has always been content produced without compensation. I don't think many people will deny that compensation encourages more creation. That is in fact the basis for copyright (at least in the US) - to romote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. But that does not mean that the current copyright scheme is the best way of achieving more creation. In many ways it stifles creation as much as it encourages it. Yes, we need to make it so that those who create can afford to live. But why do we need to so heavily restrict everyone elses rights to share and then throw public funds into enforcement of that insanity in order to achieve that? Really, we should make it so that everyone can affort to live instead and encourage creation via public and community funding or private patronage directly instead of doing this copyright dance where middlemen profit off our shared culture.