3 ms·

But for most of human history, there weren't instant/digital cameras, digital recording devices, TVs, monitors, internets, instant and basically free copies, an

But for most of human history, there weren't instant/digital cameras, digital recording devices, TVs, monitors, internets, instant and basically free copies, and so on. You want to see the latest Monet painting? There's only one way to do that. Want to make a very close copy of it? It's likely you're a bit of a genius yourself. It's not that I think this model is perfect, but consuming art was difficult at best, expensive for much of history, and for large swaths of time, reserved for the rich. If the exchange for extremely cheap and ubiquitous consumability is a model where artists get further compensated, I'm fine with that.

Fargren 11y ago
I agree that the model we had is probably not a perfect fit for our era. But the one we have wasn't designed for this time either. It is a combination of historical accident and strong lobbying for private interests that got us to this point. And while we do get extremely cheap and ubiquitous consumability, which is a good thing, we also get highly restricted redistribution, derivation and consumption. What I believe is that we should have a system where everyone is free to distribute any form of media they have access to, and of any modifications he can make of that. Obviously, this would require a different form of compensation than the one we are using; if anyone can distribute, then charging for distribution is not a great idea. We should instead pay the produces for the act of producing (and the performers for the act of performing). This is not some crazy scheme by the way: this is exactly how we pay employees for software. We agree on a price for your skill, and pay you for as long as you excersize that skill. Patreon and Kickstarter also work with similar models, compensating for the creative act before it is done (or directly afterwards).

Fargren 11y ago

I agree that the model we had is probably not a perfect fit for our era. But the one we have wasn't designed for this time either. It is a combination of historical accident and strong lobbying for private interests that got us to this point. And while we do get extremely cheap and ubiquitous consumability, which is a good thing, we also get highly restricted redistribution, derivation and consumption. What I believe is that we should have a system where everyone is free to distribute any form of media they have access to, and of any modifications he can make of that. Obviously, this would require a different form of compensation than the one we are using; if anyone can distribute, then charging for distribution is not a great idea. We should instead pay the produces for the act of producing (and the performers for the act of performing). This is not some crazy scheme by the way: this is exactly how we pay employees for software. We agree on a price for your skill, and pay you for as long as you excersize that skill. Patreon and Kickstarter also work with similar models, compensating for the creative act before it is done (or directly afterwards).