2 ms·
This is one big strawman argument. Copyright doesn't imply that simply creating Art entitles you to compensation. You can sit at home painting and copyrighting
by imgabe 17y ago
This is one big strawman argument. Copyright doesn't imply that simply creating Art entitles you to compensation. You can sit at home painting and copyrighting your Art all day long and never get a penny for it.
Not everyone will like a particular work of art. I don't think people who dislike a work should be obligated to pay for it.
Copyright doesn't do this! I don't like country music. The fact that it's copyrighted doesn't force me to buy it!
This article hurts my head.
- crux_ 17y agoI don't think it's a strawman; it's a response to the frequent argument that artists ought to be compensated for their art via copyright mechanisms... as she stated in the very first sentence, as a matter of fact. If that argument was never actually made, well, maybe then it would be a strawman; but it is made all the time. The article hurt my head too, by the way, but that is because of the Weird Capitalization. I think there's a bit of conflation across several questions going on, both here and in most discussions on the topic: * Is an artist entitled to compensation merely for creating art? * Is an artist entitled to compensation by those who view their art? * Is an artist entitled to compensation by those who redistribute her art?
- imgabe 17y agoShe seems to be saying that copyrights are somehow extracting money from people in exchange for art they don't want and therefore we should do away with it. This isn't happening. That's why it's a strawman.