| > Yet another strawman! Nobody demanded ownership forever, but some form of compensation for things you enjoy. > What you describe isn't art, but the service of creating an artwork on demand as a service. Not a strawman (and also relevant to copyrightable art) while copyright is able to used to enforce royalties. Fair compensation is 1 work = 1 payment, not 1 work = pay over 100+ years. (Related aside: Private entities have the right to enter into contracts they wish (e.g. if you personally want to pay an artist over and over during your lifetime, fine), but when it seeps into law that enables third parties to sue, then it is no longer a private matter.) > If we were doing that, society would be at a net loss, > Instead, by spreading this amount over consumers, we can have accessible content for most people Mass media dilutes art, makes it impersonal, limits attention span by encouraging a "fad/fashion" approach to creative works, and forces art to be subservient to things like advertising. You sure it wouldn't be a net gain? It does make artists lives more difficult, but things that are more important to society are difficult as well, such as being a doctor, so ... no sympathy. |