> If anything should be open and free, it's art. We've had free (both gratis and libre) art for ages. It just hasn't been convenient, and often only really fr

> If anything should be open and free, it's art. We've had free (both gratis and libre) art for ages. It just hasn't been convenient, and often only really free for the wealthy and/or those who have a lot of spare time to track it down. Otherwise, it's limited and controlled. Want a book? Go to your local library. Want to see inspirational paintings/statues? Head to your local museum! Music? It's being broadcast on the radio 24/7! Movies? They're also being broadcast for free on TV (you don't even need cable!) Oh, your local library/museum isn't very local, you can't afford a taxi and there's insufficient public transport? Too bad. At least they're free for wealthy people. Saved up, spent a lot of time, went there, and they didn't have what you were looking for? Too bad, it's free if you can travel to another location or wait (who knows how long) for it to arrive there. That music you wanted? It's playing for free, but on a station that your receiver doesn't pick up. That movie? It played last December. If you wait 8 more months it'll probably be on for free again. But not right now, the station wants you to watch something different. Free art is not new, nor is it a threat to artists. Writers never got paid more because you had to pay cab fare to get to the library. Actors never got paid more because you had to wait several months to see reruns of their movies. Ancient Greek sculptors aren't suffering just because you get to see their statue for free at the museum. What's new is that it's much more ubiquitously and evenly accessible. And that you are free to choose/explore anything, rather than just what someone allows you to watch/listen to/read/view.