[lotsoweiners]

Because normal people don’t care about “human cultural output” or “societal value” and think people who use those kinds of terms sound like blowhards. The rest of us just want reasonably cheap, convenient entertainment. Artists and others in the music biz want to get paid. Nothing here that is very hard to understand.

[uni_rule]

This point would work better if the vast majority of artists actually were paid well.

[mixmastamyk]

Normal people do like free stuff it turns out. And typically not going to pay when it's ancient anyway. Instead of going without, they could give it a try. They'd like that too—if they knew it was possible and even encouraged.

[IndySun]

Can you please add a link to your free art, movie, album, musical, and/or poem. Or do you only supply links to other peoples said art?

[tux3]

Some people like creating enough that they'll even do it for free, as a hobby, sometimes in addition to doing in professionally and getting paid good money for it. Sometimes it's drawings, sometimes it's music, sometimes it's software on www.github.com.

But I'm not sure the point of asking people to link their own free work in context, how would that change the discussion? Is the proposal to gatekeep who can access the Internet Archive and share links to other people's art on whether they're enough of an artist themselves?

If you think it's wrong for people to archive old art that's not sold anymore, it seems to me that should hold regardless of whether the archivist has a Devianart and a Bandcamp account of their own

[IndySun]

"some people" like creating art for free. They presumably would be people who do not need to create art for money, ergo?

(typo)

[tux3]

I'm not really sure I understand why I should suppose that. I've seen people in every category, who started with a passion and did or did not turn it into a job, and did or did find the time to keep making art for the love of it

You can do art for money or not, I just don't see how you're trying to relate this to archival of music that is no longer sold, whose authors aren't around anymore. I get the impression you're trying to ask people who archive art whether they make art themselves, but I fail to see the point. Very possibly they do, but then so what?

[IndySun]

'You can do art for money or not', does not compute in the poverty stricken corners of this planet. A staggeringly blasé remark.

US Copyright laws, that tend to circle the globe, are obnoxious, favoring the already wealthy or established entities to make creativity an unfair business. I look forward to the change.

I am not advocating a blanket position on 'art', or any human endeavour, for that matter. But it would be amiss to not at least mention wider implications to society and culture as a whole.

[mixmastamyk]

You missed the part where we are talking about ancient work and dead people. Think—Hitchcock movies.

My personal software is floss BTW.

[ponderings]

I don't like answering questions with questions but how would you know it is mine? How do you firmly tie the license to the art work? How do you tie parts of a remix to different licenses? How do the songs on my security camera work? How do we record the licenses onto the security footage? Can we play security camera footage at someones funeral? If not, how do we obtain the license so that we may pay the right conglomerate?

[beej71]

I'm always happy to drop links to my free (beer) books, no SEO, DRM, ads, or tracking. Simply knowledge for the sake of knowledge.

But it's kinda OT on this thread and feels too much like blatant self-promotion, so I'll refrain. :)