3 ms·

I don't see how that does anything but fuck over artists and allow corporations to exploit them even further.

• lotsofpulp 2y ago
  “Artists” are not a monolith. For example, music streaming services have to spend most of their money on artists that performed many decades ago, otherwise no one will buy it. This reduces spend available for new artists. Excessive copyright terms go from incentivizing creating art to incentivizing rent seeking. Society also spends a ton more resources litigating disputes and avoiding them.
  • iamacyborg 2y ago
    This seems like an incredible naive way of thinking about how artists should be rewarded for their work. > music streaming services have to spend most of their money on artists that performed many decades ago, otherwise no one will buy it Music streaming services should spend their money on artists their customers are listening to, however old that music happens to be.
    • Dylan16807 2y ago
      > however old Eh, I don't think there's a very convincing argument that the world is better off paying artists for things that were made more than 50 years ago. (Yes I know the person above said 10, I think 10 is too aggressive.)
      • iamacyborg 2y ago
        Probably depends on whether or not they’re still alive after whatever arbitrary time period and some other factors, sure