3 ms·

> where is the incentive to produce if one cannot exert any control over the distribution and sale of creative works? Believe it or not, people were creating a

• anigbrowl 12y ago
  True, but mostly under a system of patronage. Much art is time-consuming to create and requires special materials and/or skills, which involve a significant economic investment. That's especially true for film and TV.
  • dragonwriter 12y ago
    > True, but mostly under a system of patronage. Much art is time-consuming to create and requires special materials and/or skills, which involve a significant economic investment. Which is also true with copyright. For the kind of art you discuss, insofar as their is an economic inducement to create complex art from copyright, it is an indirect inducement (since the actual artists still can't afford the up-front costs) that induces patronage.
• tzs 12y ago
  Things have changed in how we produce and utilize art a little in the 300+ years since then. Back then, it took as much time and effort and money, and almost as much skill and talent, to copy art as it did to create new art. Ordinary could not afford copies of art. The wealthy and powerful patrons that could afford to have art made wanted original works, not copies of existing works--they were buying art to show off the wealth and success of themselves or of the region they ruled, and copying someone else's art would do a poor job of that. Also, art tended to be the work of a single artist (with possibly a handful of assistants). They generally did not have anything on the scale of a modern movie or television show or video game.