4 ms·

Oh yeah, I forgot artists are spiritual creatures who don't have to eat. It certainly isn't the only reason to create but a necessary condition to actually be a

by lewhoo 3y ago

Oh yeah, I forgot artists are spiritual creatures who don't have to eat. It certainly isn't the only reason to create but a necessary condition to actually be a professional artist, no ?

ImHereToVote 3y ago
Why don't you just ask for an increase in the allowance from your family trust fund? People have become so lazy nowadays, they can't even be bothered to have a hard talk about their financial estate with their rich grand-papá anymore.
sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
Reread my comment again. If your __only__ motivation is money, you will have a problem. I agree it’s necessary to pay artists - but we don’t need copyright for that! There are many tried and proven alternatives.
- Loughla 3y ago
  >There are many tried and proven alternatives. Other than patronage, what is there? Also, patronage is garbage, in my opinion. It ensures artists are exclusively either already wealthy, or well connected. It also helps ensure that the wealthy are most often represented in the art created; for some reason this seems like a bad idea to me.
  - ED_Radish 3y ago
    copyright based scarcity is effectively dead for anyone with an Internet connection anyway honestly I think a gratuity model may become dominant with or without any legal changes at this point you'll often see on YouTube patreon revenue equally or dwarfing ads the reliance of the music industry on merch seems similar too* I think people are more willing than you'd think to pay for art simply because they understand it won't exist without money. *(if that sounds like a stretch, consider if in a world devoid of copyright, whether a Walmart printed band shirt for cheap would be equivalent for most purchasers to the same shirt sold by the actual artist )
- endisneigh 3y ago
  So naive lol. How many independent, unconnected rich artists were born pre and post YouTube for instance?
  - sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
    No idea - do you know?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by lewhoo 3y ago

Oh yeah, I forgot artists are spiritual creatures who don't have to eat. It certainly isn't the only reason to create but a necessary condition to actually be a professional artist, no ?

ImHereToVote 3y ago

Why don't you just ask for an increase in the allowance from your family trust fund? People have become so lazy nowadays, they can't even be bothered to have a hard talk about their financial estate with their rich grand-papá anymore.

sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago

Reread my comment again. If your __only__ motivation is money, you will have a problem. I agree it’s necessary to pay artists - but we don’t need copyright for that! There are many tried and proven alternatives.

Loughla 3y ago
>There are many tried and proven alternatives. Other than patronage, what is there? Also, patronage is garbage, in my opinion. It ensures artists are exclusively either already wealthy, or well connected. It also helps ensure that the wealthy are most often represented in the art created; for some reason this seems like a bad idea to me.
- ED_Radish 3y ago
  copyright based scarcity is effectively dead for anyone with an Internet connection anyway honestly I think a gratuity model may become dominant with or without any legal changes at this point you'll often see on YouTube patreon revenue equally or dwarfing ads the reliance of the music industry on merch seems similar too* I think people are more willing than you'd think to pay for art simply because they understand it won't exist without money. *(if that sounds like a stretch, consider if in a world devoid of copyright, whether a Walmart printed band shirt for cheap would be equivalent for most purchasers to the same shirt sold by the actual artist )
endisneigh 3y ago
So naive lol. How many independent, unconnected rich artists were born pre and post YouTube for instance?
- sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
  No idea - do you know?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]