3 ms·
The way art has been financed for the centuries before copyright existed: patronage. It seems like the modern equivalent is going to be Kickstarter et al.
by acabal 13y ago
The way art has been financed for the centuries before copyright existed: patronage. It seems like the modern equivalent is going to be Kickstarter et al.
- pandaman 13y agoSure, if you can afford that. Most people, especially among the torrentfreak audience are not going to afford even recording of an album for few K. I definitely cannot afford few dozen million for a blockbuster movie. And if Kickstarter had been sufficient there would not be torrentfreak at all - people would happily enjoy their donated/free art and stayed away from the copyrighted works, would not they?
- thristian 13y agoSites like bandcamp.com are filled with interesting music; maybe it cost a few thousand dollars to produce, maybe it was made by some guy in his parents' basement for a few hundred dollars and a lot of time and effort. You're right about blockbuster movies, though—nobody will make them anymore. Then again, nobody makes giant stone pyramids in the desert anymore, either, and for the same reason: economic conditions changed, and it wasn't a good way to spend money anymore.
- skylan_q 13y agoYou're right about blockbuster movies, though—nobody will make them anymore. Yes, I can see this happening as well. Why is it taken for granted that they are a necessity? I think people are just too set in their ways to comprehend the world any differently so they just start trying to justify why we need to keep things the way they are.
- pandaman 13y agoAnd youtube is filled with the videos of cats. If you are into that stuff and don't care about blockbuster movies, commercial music etc. then you should not have any problem with copyright. It does not prevent you from enjoying your free art.
- skylan_q 13y agoIt does not prevent you from enjoying your free art. It prevents people from building on existing copyrighted art. Talent is redirected to creating work that becomes copyrighted. As a result, people have less to draw from without paying royalties, so it does effect those who don't care for copyrighted work.
- pandaman 13y ago>It prevents people from building on existing copyrighted art. Does not prevent existing copyrighted art to be build so does not look like an issue to me. >Talent is redirected to creating work that becomes copyrighted. Authors prefer to be paid for their work? Let me ask you - if you had not been paid for whatever you do, would you continue doing that or found other, more productive occupation? As somebody who is being paid for creating copyrighted work I can assure you - I would not work for free, I'd do something else.
- skylan_q 13y agoDoes not prevent existing copyrighted art to be build so does not look like an issue to me. It makes derivative work difficult or impossible. Authors prefer to be paid for their work? Let me ask you - if you had not been paid for whatever you do, would you continue doing that or found other, more productive occupation? As somebody who is being paid for creating copyrighted work I can assure you - I would not work for free, I'd do something else. I understand and agree. What I don't understand is why we need copyright protection. For the people who are protected by it? That borders on rent-seeking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
- pandaman 13y agoWe need copyright protection to promote progress of science and useful arts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause