6 ms·

I'm not an artist and might be entirely wrong, but my understanding is that for 99% of artists, over 99% of their revenue is from concerts tickets, merch and ot

I'm not an artist and might be entirely wrong, but my understanding is that for 99% of artists, over 99% of their revenue is from concerts tickets, merch and other physical products, rather than digital/broadcast plays, so changing this to zero wouldn't really affect them, but would act to reduce the power of the labels and other intermediaries over them.

Aurornis 16d ago
Copyright covers a lot more than the long tail of indie music bands who stream a few thousand plays on Spotify. This thread has a lot of arguments based entirely on beliefs about small bands and streaming services. Music is only a small part of copyright law.
- armchairhacker 16d ago
  I have the same understanding regarding YouTubers and writers. There’s so much competition nowadays, almost no indie can achieve nearly enough sales for a living wage. And ironically, the best way to get more attention is to make your product free, hence more and more artists doing free + paid merch.
  - Aurornis 16d ago
    Going full time on YouTube as a primary and only job is unlikely to work out. The YouTube income for most small creators get folded back into the channel. Getting a $100 check from YouTube isn’t going to pay your rent, but it makes purchasing some better lighting or a new microphone for the channel an easy choice, which in turn helps them grow and enjoy their hobby channel more. The argument that the dollar amount is low and therefore it’s okay if we push it all the way to $0 is unconvincing for anyone familiar with how small time creators grow.
    - armchairhacker 16d ago
      It wouldn’t be $0, because creators make money without selling their work: Patreon, commissions, even ads/sponsorships (though not ideal). Most creators I know, all their main work is already free.
      - UtopiaPunk 16d ago
        The artist still owns their right to distribute their videos. If someone copies their videos and uploads them to a place with no ads or no patreon subscription that eats into the profit the creator of the art could be making, because someone else is essentially giving it away for free. Only the artist has the right to copy their art.
        armchairhacker 15d ago
        Ad revenue is also subverted by seeing the original video with uBlock, which I think is fair, because I think ads are harmful and unsustainable - like copyright, only a small minority of indie creators get sustainable revenue from ads, and I'd be surprised if the number wasn't decreasing. Not linking the author's name and patreon is a problem, but I don't think it needs laws and definitely not copyright; if somebody gets the video on the other place to link the original author's patreon, even if they're not who uploaded it, it benefits them and I don't see any serious issue.
duped 16d ago
There are more kinds of art than just music.
jnovek 16d ago
It seems like you really only know about how the affects people who make music and TV. What about illustrators who license their work? Knitters and crocheters who create patterns? There are countless people who sell creative output on a license-basis which would no longer exist in a world without copyright. Already people who make visual art are demotivated by AI, follow literally any visual artist on Instagram and you’ll see this. Taking away copyright would make that look tiny in comparison.
- joquarky 15d ago
  Why do they need 70+ years to recoup enough to make their efforts worthwhile? A kid who grows up watching $favorite-show can never produce derivative works of that show within their lifetime.
- falcor84 16d ago
  > Knitters and crocheters who create patterns? Wow, is that a thing? If you're willing to share, I'd love to hear more about these vocations and how they make money.
  - bluefirebrand 16d ago
    What does making money have to do with creating art? Do you only care about professional artists or something? Amateur artists deserve legal protection for their artwork too :/
    - 4thguy 16d ago
      That person clearly doesn't know any people who make art.
  - Symbiote 16d ago
    Search "knitting patterns".
  - text0404 16d ago
    People who are well-versed in fields like fashion will create original designs which include yarn requirements, needle size, measurements, stitch instructions, construction steps, etc etc and sell them in online marketplaces like Etsy or Revelry.
Angostura 16d ago
Big studios will love this They’ll come across some talented little band playing some nice new tune in a tiny club, record it on their phone and give it to one of the existing boy-bands to play. No need to sign up aspiring artists any more - just take their songs. Of course it’s the boy band that will sell the merch and the concert tickets.
- triceratops 16d ago
  They can already do that. It's called a mechanical cover license. In fact if all of copyright operated with mechanical licenses it would be a much better system.
bluefirebrand 16d ago
I suspect that for 99% of artists, over 99% of their income is from a day job, often minimum wage If you're at the point where you're making money from merch and concert tickets you're probably ahead of 99% of artists I suppose we usually just call them "aspiring artists" then, but still
- asib 16d ago
  No, condescending people call them "aspiring". Anyone who knows and likes art calls them artists.
RiverCrochet 16d ago
Without copyright, artist B could perform artist A's original work without penalty. If artist B is better at astroturfing social media than A (maybe because they pay a firm to do it) , then B makes money and A does not.
xboxnolifes 16d ago
Copyright covers that merch and physical products as well.
Topfi 16d ago
What? That'd mean 99% of artists are touring musicians giving live performances. Moviemakers, authors, graphic designers, stone masons, song writers, ... Not every artists is a musician. Not every musician performs in venues to such an extent that it makes up most or all of their revenue. Not every musicians output lends themselves to live performances, so they don't do them. I'd be surprised if even 10% of artists in the EU or US are making their revenue as live musicians. Whatever the number, it ain't 99%. Brief anecdote, currently working on a personal project and have commissioned an artist to design a few icons. Was a great experience, fun to work with them, more than happy with the result. Exclusive exploitation/usage rights were only transferred after full compensation was received. If copyright were not a thing in both their and mine countries, screwing over commissioned artists would be even easier than it already and unfortunately tends to be (having done freelance work myself) as this idea that the artist retains their rights before that point wouldn't be the default and any protections/claims solely based on individual contracts. Copyright can be flawed, yes, but taking away the core that is artists having their creations protected by default, without needing to manually apply or otherwise seek protection, I feel that shouldn't happen. Copyright, even today, does have merit in my book, though the lobbying efforts by Disney and co. along with post War western Europe loving to just copy US legislation wholesale without reflection have extended copyright further then I feel it should have been.

Aurornis 16d ago

Copyright covers a lot more than the long tail of indie music bands who stream a few thousand plays on Spotify. This thread has a lot of arguments based entirely on beliefs about small bands and streaming services. Music is only a small part of copyright law.

armchairhacker 16d ago
I have the same understanding regarding YouTubers and writers. There’s so much competition nowadays, almost no indie can achieve nearly enough sales for a living wage. And ironically, the best way to get more attention is to make your product free, hence more and more artists doing free + paid merch.
- Aurornis 16d ago
  Going full time on YouTube as a primary and only job is unlikely to work out. The YouTube income for most small creators get folded back into the channel. Getting a $100 check from YouTube isn’t going to pay your rent, but it makes purchasing some better lighting or a new microphone for the channel an easy choice, which in turn helps them grow and enjoy their hobby channel more. The argument that the dollar amount is low and therefore it’s okay if we push it all the way to $0 is unconvincing for anyone familiar with how small time creators grow.
  - armchairhacker 16d ago
    It wouldn’t be $0, because creators make money without selling their work: Patreon, commissions, even ads/sponsorships (though not ideal). Most creators I know, all their main work is already free.
    - UtopiaPunk 16d ago
      The artist still owns their right to distribute their videos. If someone copies their videos and uploads them to a place with no ads or no patreon subscription that eats into the profit the creator of the art could be making, because someone else is essentially giving it away for free. Only the artist has the right to copy their art.
      - armchairhacker 15d ago
        Ad revenue is also subverted by seeing the original video with uBlock, which I think is fair, because I think ads are harmful and unsustainable - like copyright, only a small minority of indie creators get sustainable revenue from ads, and I'd be surprised if the number wasn't decreasing. Not linking the author's name and patreon is a problem, but I don't think it needs laws and definitely not copyright; if somebody gets the video on the other place to link the original author's patreon, even if they're not who uploaded it, it benefits them and I don't see any serious issue.

duped 16d ago

There are more kinds of art than just music.

jnovek 16d ago

It seems like you really only know about how the affects people who make music and TV. What about illustrators who license their work? Knitters and crocheters who create patterns? There are countless people who sell creative output on a license-basis which would no longer exist in a world without copyright. Already people who make visual art are demotivated by AI, follow literally any visual artist on Instagram and you’ll see this. Taking away copyright would make that look tiny in comparison.

joquarky 15d ago
Why do they need 70+ years to recoup enough to make their efforts worthwhile? A kid who grows up watching $favorite-show can never produce derivative works of that show within their lifetime.
falcor84 16d ago
> Knitters and crocheters who create patterns? Wow, is that a thing? If you're willing to share, I'd love to hear more about these vocations and how they make money.
- bluefirebrand 16d ago
  What does making money have to do with creating art? Do you only care about professional artists or something? Amateur artists deserve legal protection for their artwork too :/
  - 4thguy 16d ago
    That person clearly doesn't know any people who make art.
- Symbiote 16d ago
  Search "knitting patterns".
- text0404 16d ago
  People who are well-versed in fields like fashion will create original designs which include yarn requirements, needle size, measurements, stitch instructions, construction steps, etc etc and sell them in online marketplaces like Etsy or Revelry.

Angostura 16d ago

Big studios will love this They’ll come across some talented little band playing some nice new tune in a tiny club, record it on their phone and give it to one of the existing boy-bands to play. No need to sign up aspiring artists any more - just take their songs. Of course it’s the boy band that will sell the merch and the concert tickets.

triceratops 16d ago
They can already do that. It's called a mechanical cover license. In fact if all of copyright operated with mechanical licenses it would be a much better system.

bluefirebrand 16d ago

I suspect that for 99% of artists, over 99% of their income is from a day job, often minimum wage If you're at the point where you're making money from merch and concert tickets you're probably ahead of 99% of artists I suppose we usually just call them "aspiring artists" then, but still

asib 16d ago
No, condescending people call them "aspiring". Anyone who knows and likes art calls them artists.

RiverCrochet 16d ago

Without copyright, artist B could perform artist A's original work without penalty. If artist B is better at astroturfing social media than A (maybe because they pay a firm to do it) , then B makes money and A does not.

xboxnolifes 16d ago

Topfi 16d ago

What? That'd mean 99% of artists are touring musicians giving live performances. Moviemakers, authors, graphic designers, stone masons, song writers, ... Not every artists is a musician. Not every musician performs in venues to such an extent that it makes up most or all of their revenue. Not every musicians output lends themselves to live performances, so they don't do them. I'd be surprised if even 10% of artists in the EU or US are making their revenue as live musicians. Whatever the number, it ain't 99%. Brief anecdote, currently working on a personal project and have commissioned an artist to design a few icons. Was a great experience, fun to work with them, more than happy with the result. Exclusive exploitation/usage rights were only transferred after full compensation was received. If copyright were not a thing in both their and mine countries, screwing over commissioned artists would be even easier than it already and unfortunately tends to be (having done freelance work myself) as this idea that the artist retains their rights before that point wouldn't be the default and any protections/claims solely based on individual contracts. Copyright can be flawed, yes, but taking away the core that is artists having their creations protected by default, without needing to manually apply or otherwise seek protection, I feel that shouldn't happen. Copyright, even today, does have merit in my book, though the lobbying efforts by Disney and co. along with post War western Europe loving to just copy US legislation wholesale without reflection have extended copyright further then I feel it should have been.