3 ms·
Agreeing with the original post I was commenting on that said: > Without some form of protection, a lot of work would never be available to most people because
by anonymouskimmer 3y ago
Agreeing with the original post I was commenting on that said:
> Without some form of protection, a lot of work would never be available to most people because keeping it hidden will become the only protection artists have.
Wu Tang had a bunch of listening sessions where people could listen to the record with headphones for a price. They could not record what they were listening to. It's like a concert, but no one can make bootleg recordings of it (okay, maybe with hearing aids).
In the early days of the telephone there were similar ways to listen to operas and concerts remotely through a headset.
If copyright didn't exist, musical artists and visual artists would be incentivized to release public snippets of their work to generate interest, and then only showcase the whole thing in private without the ability to reproduce. I can only imagine what radio would turn into.
- 8note 3y agoIf copyright didn't exist, artists would primarily monetize by taking commissions to make art, rather than looking to sell copies of art they already made
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoYes? Are you contradicting me or just adding another route in which broad availability of art would be limited? Most musicians monetize through performance after selling copies. While there are some jobs for spec music, it's not enough to support all of the musicians who are currently making a living off of their music.
- account42 3y agoExactly, so many pro-copyright arguments say how specific business models rely on copyright. So what. Which business models are viable changes all the time. What matters is that we still have art and we did have art even before copyright.