4 ms·

Can you explain why a patronage model is unable to solve these problems?

Silhouette 14y ago
Perhaps it could, but clearly we produce vastly more new works under copyright than we ever did when we relied on patronage. That doesn't necessarily demonstrate a causal effect, but again, I come back to the argument that nothing today is stopping wealthy patrons from funding new projects, yet hardly anyone is. I don't know why we'd assume lots of multimillionaire philanthropists would, either individually or with a handful of similarly rich friends, suddenly start personally paying for things like say the Lord of the Rings films, just because copyright was abolished. Even if they did, it would take lots of very rich people giving up a lot of their wealth to get anywhere near funding just what today's movie industry costs, never mind literature, music, software, and the rest.
- TuringTest 14y ago
  Or, we could take lots and lots of not very rich people giving a little of their wealth. The last time that society relied on patronage for producing art, we didn't have around a platform that can potentially connect all humans to support the same artistic endeavor. This is basically how blockbusters are financed nowadays, so it's a viable proposition. There's no evidence that changing from copyright to patronage would change that outcome.
- apotheon 14y ago
  > clearly we produce vastly more new works under copyright than we ever did when we relied on patronage. When patronage was en vogue, we didn't have as high a rate of literacy or access to digital editing tools. These facilitations of the process of creation, even ignoring things like cheap paper and disposable writing implements that last months and cost less than a bottle of water, dwarf any legal changes that might otherwise apply (notwithstanding France's dark period of outlawing the printing press altogether as a tool of sedition). If copyright has anything to do with the current rate of creation, it is primarily by impeding the spread of inspirational materials that might otherwise hasten creative people's efforts. Compare copyright-controlled England with mostly copyright-free Germany in the 1800s to see how the freedom to copy and resell lit a fire under the asses of both writers and publishers, and created a lot more writers by spreading knowledge far and wide and as rapidly as possible to create a (for the era) highly educated population. > it would take lots of very rich people giving up a lot of their wealth to get anywhere near funding just what today's movie industry costs I think it's pretty clear that there is little correlation between relative level of funding and relative quality in the movie industry. In any case, there are other ways to get funding without relying on copyright than purely status-related patronage.

Perhaps it could, but clearly we produce vastly more new works under copyright than we ever did when we relied on patronage. That doesn't necessarily demonstrate a causal effect, but again, I come back to the argument that nothing today is stopping wealthy patrons from funding new projects, yet hardly anyone is. I don't know why we'd assume lots of multimillionaire philanthropists would, either individually or with a handful of similarly rich friends, suddenly start personally paying for things like say the Lord of the Rings films, just because copyright was abolished. Even if they did, it would take lots of very rich people giving up a lot of their wealth to get anywhere near funding just what today's movie industry costs, never mind literature, music, software, and the rest.

TuringTest 14y ago
Or, we could take lots and lots of not very rich people giving a little of their wealth. The last time that society relied on patronage for producing art, we didn't have around a platform that can potentially connect all humans to support the same artistic endeavor. This is basically how blockbusters are financed nowadays, so it's a viable proposition. There's no evidence that changing from copyright to patronage would change that outcome.
apotheon 14y ago
> clearly we produce vastly more new works under copyright than we ever did when we relied on patronage. When patronage was en vogue, we didn't have as high a rate of literacy or access to digital editing tools. These facilitations of the process of creation, even ignoring things like cheap paper and disposable writing implements that last months and cost less than a bottle of water, dwarf any legal changes that might otherwise apply (notwithstanding France's dark period of outlawing the printing press altogether as a tool of sedition). If copyright has anything to do with the current rate of creation, it is primarily by impeding the spread of inspirational materials that might otherwise hasten creative people's efforts. Compare copyright-controlled England with mostly copyright-free Germany in the 1800s to see how the freedom to copy and resell lit a fire under the asses of both writers and publishers, and created a lot more writers by spreading knowledge far and wide and as rapidly as possible to create a (for the era) highly educated population. > it would take lots of very rich people giving up a lot of their wealth to get anywhere near funding just what today's movie industry costs I think it's pretty clear that there is little correlation between relative level of funding and relative quality in the movie industry. In any case, there are other ways to get funding without relying on copyright than purely status-related patronage.