|
|
|
|
|
|
by tenebrisalietum
977 days ago
|
|
|
Good art will outlive its creator - either in the form of the work itself or through inspirations to others. The relation between a work of art and its creator cannot be "ownership like the physical sense" forever. > Something tells me those same people would get very upset if we suggested their own work, code, or labor should be freely used by anyone who wanted to, including their employer. I’m guessing they like to be paid for their work For the record, I think it should work like this: I'm an artist. You want art from me. You tell me what you want, I create it, you pay me. This is straightforward and obvious. > People get to decide how much to charge for their work. If you don’t want to pay that amount, you are not entitled to receive it for free. It costs many dollars to make copy 1 of Y. You worked, you should get paid for copy 1. It costs 0 dollars to make copy 2 of something. Anything you think you should receive above 0 for copy 2 is only justifiable with moral entitlements to the money of other people. |
|
|
Yet another strawman! Nobody demanded ownership forever, but some form of compensation for things you enjoy.
> For the record, I think it should work like this: I'm an artist. You want art from me. You tell me what you want, I create it, you pay me. This is straightforward and obvious.
What you describe isn't art, but the service of creating an artwork on demand as a service.
> It costs many dollars to make copy 1 of Y. You worked, you should get paid for copy 1.
If we were doing that, society would be at a net loss, because pretty much nobody was able to pay the cost for an artwork upfront - a single movie costs up to several hundred millions of dollars to manufacture. This leads to a world where most media simply wouldn't exist. I doubt that's the one you'd prefer living in.
Instead, by spreading this amount over consumers, we can have accessible content for most people, and a way for artists to make a living from creating artworks as a service.