5 ms·

"Perhaps financial renumeration, while fair, isn't entirely necessary" Is it that in your world, eating and paying the rent isn't necessary either? 'Many' cre

by talon88 11y ago

"Perhaps financial renumeration, while fair, isn't entirely necessary" Is it that in your world, eating and paying the rent isn't necessary either? 'Many' creative people sounds like some programmers, which is somewhat small subset of all creatives. I'd be surprised if the majority of creative people — artists, writers, actors, and more — would happily go about saying that financial renumeration doesn't matter to them. Destin, for example, puts a lot of effort into his videos and his work. Financial renumeration not being necessarily inevitably means Destin does something else for the majority of his time and does Smarter Ever Day less (if at all). This is almost certainly the same for every other artist out there. Sure — maybe all art isn't necessary. Maybe some of it is crap. But saying that being paid to be creative isn't necessarily means that you get very little art, if at all.

baddox 11y ago
> Is it that in your world, eating and paying the rent isn't necessary either? Of course it is, and thus figuring out an occupation or business model that allows you to eat and pay rent is important.
- gknoy 11y ago
  While that sounds great, I suspect that there are many people with the skill and interest to be professional artists who, if they were spending their days writing code or welding or $JOB, would be uninterested / unable to dedicate resources (time, money) towards Creating Things in the degree that they can when creating such things is their full-time job. tl;dr: There should be a way for creative people to make Creating Art the occupation that pays them money for rent/food/etc.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    Based on very limited knowledge, I believe that historically and now, most artists have had 'day jobs'. Very few have earned enough from their art. Come to think of it, to what degree does IP protect only the most successful artists, and may even be a net hinderence to most.
  - baddox 11y ago
    There's also undoubtedly lots of interesting and potentially profitable art and innovation that is impossible because of those IP laws. I can't confidently say that one set is more worthy than the other.
jessaustin 11y ago
But saying that being paid to be creative isn't necessarily [sic] means that you get very little art, if at all. Humans have always created art. Modern conceptions of intellectual property have not always existed. Why would art depend on that?
- saidajigumi 11y ago
  Because here, in the post-industrial world, it's very hard to make a living from one-off works of craftsmanship. That didn't used to be the case, when that was the only way to get things made. It happens today, but the economics make it an unusual situation. The labor involved forces the per-unit prices to be stratospheric, vastly limiting the market. But we have an alternative: leverage digital technology's nigh-zero marginal costs and charge very reasonable prices to large numbers of people. The idea that because the marginal cost is zero that the cost should be zero is a horribly greedy devaluation of creative labor. So I'm all for new economic structures, but AFAICT no one's stepped up with a better way that's actually proven to allow creative folks to continue to make a living. (Or that even has a snowball's chance once tried outside of armchair philosophizing.) One last thought, since it's universally sizable corporations who control those digital distribution channels... do we REALLY want to cede even more power over content to these entities? If we just drop IP laws, that further enriches these corps at the cost of individual and/or small creators. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > If we just drop IP laws, that further enriches these corps at the cost of individual and/or small creators. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. A good question, but I'm not sure. Those large corporations produce a lot of IP; maybe the small guy will benefit more than the big guy. Remember we're all stealing from and building on each other's IP. Imagine if all the proprietary software was open source, from OS X to Office to SunOS to SAS to Mathematica to Photoshop to AutoCAD to Google's search algorithms. It would be a dream for many to be able to study, learn from, and reuse that code. It would be like the IP of the academic world, which generally is open and reusable by others.
belorn 11y ago
Those old claims in favor of copyright has been either partially or fully been disproved, yet it continue to be repeated as the Single and Only Truth. Financial renumeration per copy is not the only method to have artist eating and paying rent. Far from being the only way, historically it is just the most recent method and one which has strong down sides to it. The old way was simply to pay an artist so they can continue to create, which some artists has returned by using services like Patreon and get paid in order to creating more content. They are eating and paying the rent, and copyright aren't doing squat. There is also substation proof that art is created regardless of renumeration. Several studies have look into why people create art, and none of them marks renumeration as the primary reason. Surveys show instead that people create art to express themselves, to improve their skills, to social interact with others, and to make their other other peoples lives better. They do however need time to be artists, and this is where the partial truth exist in. Money enable them to spend their time on art, and copyright provide one if the many way to create that money.
anon4 11y ago
Much less art being produced is preferable to having a fucked up legal system.

by talon88 11y ago

baddox 11y ago

> Is it that in your world, eating and paying the rent isn't necessary either? Of course it is, and thus figuring out an occupation or business model that allows you to eat and pay rent is important.

gknoy 11y ago
While that sounds great, I suspect that there are many people with the skill and interest to be professional artists who, if they were spending their days writing code or welding or $JOB, would be uninterested / unable to dedicate resources (time, money) towards Creating Things in the degree that they can when creating such things is their full-time job. tl;dr: There should be a way for creative people to make Creating Art the occupation that pays them money for rent/food/etc.
- hackuser 11y ago
  Based on very limited knowledge, I believe that historically and now, most artists have had 'day jobs'. Very few have earned enough from their art. Come to think of it, to what degree does IP protect only the most successful artists, and may even be a net hinderence to most.
- baddox 11y ago
  There's also undoubtedly lots of interesting and potentially profitable art and innovation that is impossible because of those IP laws. I can't confidently say that one set is more worthy than the other.

jessaustin 11y ago

But saying that being paid to be creative isn't necessarily [sic] means that you get very little art, if at all. Humans have always created art. Modern conceptions of intellectual property have not always existed. Why would art depend on that?

saidajigumi 11y ago
Because here, in the post-industrial world, it's very hard to make a living from one-off works of craftsmanship. That didn't used to be the case, when that was the only way to get things made. It happens today, but the economics make it an unusual situation. The labor involved forces the per-unit prices to be stratospheric, vastly limiting the market. But we have an alternative: leverage digital technology's nigh-zero marginal costs and charge very reasonable prices to large numbers of people. The idea that because the marginal cost is zero that the cost should be zero is a horribly greedy devaluation of creative labor. So I'm all for new economic structures, but AFAICT no one's stepped up with a better way that's actually proven to allow creative folks to continue to make a living. (Or that even has a snowball's chance once tried outside of armchair philosophizing.) One last thought, since it's universally sizable corporations who control those digital distribution channels... do we REALLY want to cede even more power over content to these entities? If we just drop IP laws, that further enriches these corps at the cost of individual and/or small creators. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > If we just drop IP laws, that further enriches these corps at the cost of individual and/or small creators. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. A good question, but I'm not sure. Those large corporations produce a lot of IP; maybe the small guy will benefit more than the big guy. Remember we're all stealing from and building on each other's IP. Imagine if all the proprietary software was open source, from OS X to Office to SunOS to SAS to Mathematica to Photoshop to AutoCAD to Google's search algorithms. It would be a dream for many to be able to study, learn from, and reuse that code. It would be like the IP of the academic world, which generally is open and reusable by others.

belorn 11y ago

Those old claims in favor of copyright has been either partially or fully been disproved, yet it continue to be repeated as the Single and Only Truth. Financial renumeration per copy is not the only method to have artist eating and paying rent. Far from being the only way, historically it is just the most recent method and one which has strong down sides to it. The old way was simply to pay an artist so they can continue to create, which some artists has returned by using services like Patreon and get paid in order to creating more content. They are eating and paying the rent, and copyright aren't doing squat. There is also substation proof that art is created regardless of renumeration. Several studies have look into why people create art, and none of them marks renumeration as the primary reason. Surveys show instead that people create art to express themselves, to improve their skills, to social interact with others, and to make their other other peoples lives better. They do however need time to be artists, and this is where the partial truth exist in. Money enable them to spend their time on art, and copyright provide one if the many way to create that money.

anon4 11y ago

Much less art being produced is preferable to having a fucked up legal system.