5 ms·

> and oh the poor artists: next to none percentage wise gets much royalties anymore, streaming income is close to zero usually even if popular Your argument is

> and oh the poor artists: next to none percentage wise gets much royalties anymore, streaming income is close to zero usually even if popular Your argument is that artists aren’t paid enough, so we should go ahead and take it all the way to zero by law?

anonyfox 2mo ago
artists sell live experiences and original merchandise to actually make money these days. only a rare subset of megastars are living off royalties to begin with, and I am totally fine if some tailor swift has less millions to begin with. people support/pay real artists if they want more of it, else there is no way I see a right to get paid a wage for just being an artist in itself. if youre not original enough so you get copycats in a day well thats also a signal of artistic value. you cannot separate art from the artist, even if some people are okay with knockoffs after all. there is a difference between art and just content production, the latter is already worthless today with AI speedrunning the decline for mass producing mediocre slop people think is good enough.
- bigfishrunning 2mo ago
  So you'll reduce that to just live experiences: abolish copyright, and watch 1 million bootleg Taylor Swift T-shirts suddenly blink into existence
  - JoshTriplett 2mo ago
    That's a trademark issue, not a copyright issue.
    - Symbiote 2mo ago
      It's either or both, depending on the shirt design
- jnovek 2mo ago
  It’s not Taylor Swift who is hurt by this, it’s the solo creatives who cannot afford other mechanisms (e.g. trademark enforcement) to protect their work.
  - armchairhacker 2mo ago
    Trademark != copyright: trademark is attributing indies whenever their work appears (which is very doable), copyright is preventing others from seeing or reshowing their work (even with attribution). Copyright is about protecting their sales, which are practically nonexistent, hence (because it has big downsides) why it should be abolished.
    - jnovek 2mo ago
      You have to explicitly legally defend trademark, that's completely our of reach for someone who sells knitting patterns on Etsy. OTOH, DMCA can (and does) work for that group. I also dislike US IP law but I think it needs to be improved with nuance. What you propose is survivable for big IP owners but would wipe out swaths of small business owners.
noosphr 2mo ago
It's already an epsilon away from zero.
falcor84 2mo ago
I'm not an artist and might be entirely wrong, but my understanding is that for 99% of artists, over 99% of their revenue is from concerts tickets, merch and other physical products, rather than digital/broadcast plays, so changing this to zero wouldn't really affect them, but would act to reduce the power of the labels and other intermediaries over them.
- Aurornis 2mo ago
  Copyright covers a lot more than the long tail of indie music bands who stream a few thousand plays on Spotify. This thread has a lot of arguments based entirely on beliefs about small bands and streaming services. Music is only a small part of copyright law.
  - armchairhacker 2mo ago
    I have the same understanding regarding YouTubers and writers. There’s so much competition nowadays, almost no indie can achieve nearly enough sales for a living wage. And ironically, the best way to get more attention is to make your product free, hence more and more artists doing free + paid merch.
    - Aurornis 2mo ago
      Going full time on YouTube as a primary and only job is unlikely to work out. The YouTube income for most small creators get folded back into the channel. Getting a $100 check from YouTube isn’t going to pay your rent, but it makes purchasing some better lighting or a new microphone for the channel an easy choice, which in turn helps them grow and enjoy their hobby channel more. The argument that the dollar amount is low and therefore it’s okay if we push it all the way to $0 is unconvincing for anyone familiar with how small time creators grow.
      - armchairhacker 2mo ago
        It wouldn’t be $0, because creators make money without selling their work: Patreon, commissions, even ads/sponsorships (though not ideal). Most creators I know, all their main work is already free.

anonyfox 2mo ago

artists sell live experiences and original merchandise to actually make money these days. only a rare subset of megastars are living off royalties to begin with, and I am totally fine if some tailor swift has less millions to begin with. people support/pay real artists if they want more of it, else there is no way I see a right to get paid a wage for just being an artist in itself. if youre not original enough so you get copycats in a day well thats also a signal of artistic value. you cannot separate art from the artist, even if some people are okay with knockoffs after all. there is a difference between art and just content production, the latter is already worthless today with AI speedrunning the decline for mass producing mediocre slop people think is good enough.

bigfishrunning 2mo ago
So you'll reduce that to just live experiences: abolish copyright, and watch 1 million bootleg Taylor Swift T-shirts suddenly blink into existence
- JoshTriplett 2mo ago
  That's a trademark issue, not a copyright issue.
  - Symbiote 2mo ago
    It's either or both, depending on the shirt design
jnovek 2mo ago
It’s not Taylor Swift who is hurt by this, it’s the solo creatives who cannot afford other mechanisms (e.g. trademark enforcement) to protect their work.
- armchairhacker 2mo ago
  Trademark != copyright: trademark is attributing indies whenever their work appears (which is very doable), copyright is preventing others from seeing or reshowing their work (even with attribution). Copyright is about protecting their sales, which are practically nonexistent, hence (because it has big downsides) why it should be abolished.
  - jnovek 2mo ago
    You have to explicitly legally defend trademark, that's completely our of reach for someone who sells knitting patterns on Etsy. OTOH, DMCA can (and does) work for that group. I also dislike US IP law but I think it needs to be improved with nuance. What you propose is survivable for big IP owners but would wipe out swaths of small business owners.

noosphr 2mo ago

It's already an epsilon away from zero.

falcor84 2mo ago

I'm not an artist and might be entirely wrong, but my understanding is that for 99% of artists, over 99% of their revenue is from concerts tickets, merch and other physical products, rather than digital/broadcast plays, so changing this to zero wouldn't really affect them, but would act to reduce the power of the labels and other intermediaries over them.

Aurornis 2mo ago
Copyright covers a lot more than the long tail of indie music bands who stream a few thousand plays on Spotify. This thread has a lot of arguments based entirely on beliefs about small bands and streaming services. Music is only a small part of copyright law.
- armchairhacker 2mo ago
  I have the same understanding regarding YouTubers and writers. There’s so much competition nowadays, almost no indie can achieve nearly enough sales for a living wage. And ironically, the best way to get more attention is to make your product free, hence more and more artists doing free + paid merch.
  - Aurornis 2mo ago
    Going full time on YouTube as a primary and only job is unlikely to work out. The YouTube income for most small creators get folded back into the channel. Getting a $100 check from YouTube isn’t going to pay your rent, but it makes purchasing some better lighting or a new microphone for the channel an easy choice, which in turn helps them grow and enjoy their hobby channel more. The argument that the dollar amount is low and therefore it’s okay if we push it all the way to $0 is unconvincing for anyone familiar with how small time creators grow.
    - armchairhacker 2mo ago
      It wouldn’t be $0, because creators make money without selling their work: Patreon, commissions, even ads/sponsorships (though not ideal). Most creators I know, all their main work is already free.