[komali2]

> Instead of finding ways to improve the market such that the control of content isn't siloed in monopolistic corporations

I always assumed the "Anna" in the name was for "Anarchist." My assumption about the archive is that they don't believe there's an ethical solution to the restriction of access to data that involves a capitalist market.

[silcoon]

I get your point but then let's not complains if creativity dies and things all look the same. Creative people don't have motivation to produce if they can't make a living out of it.

[moritzruth]

> Creative people don't have motivation to produce if they can't make a living out of it.

That is simply not true. Most artists do what they do without ever seeing any money for it.

[_DeadFred_]

Under the current system people can release everything they want as free use.

How much media that the average person choses to consume is this 'free use' media? How much is media that artists chose to make money from?

[komali2]

This doesn't do much for the argument that artists only do art for money. Everyone knows what happens to free use art, same as what happens to FOSS: corpos bundle it up and sell it back to people.

By the way, I do know a lot of artists that just give their work away for free. Hell, any Burn is just a bunch of free art that usually gets lit on fire or destroyed after a week. There's also graffiti art which is uncompensated and usually painted over within a month.

[_DeadFred_]

Great. So you already have a firehose of free art, no need/benefit to change copyright for those that want to release that way then.

[pavlovsfrog]

fwiw, the vast majority of my working musician friends (who do also hold day jobs) would rather you pirate their music than stream it on spotify. they make basically all of their income from music via touring, streaming income might pay for a coffee or two a month.

[komali2]

> Creative people don't have motivation to produce if they can't make a living out of it.

I challenge you to ask 10 creative people in your life if they would stop doing whatever it is they do if they had a billion dollars.

[lotsofpulp]

The desire to create something does not seem like an immutable characteristic.

[v9v]

Would they do what they do if they had zero dollars?

[komali2]

> Would they do what they do if they had zero dollars?

No, probably not. Isn't it a shame we live in a world where we have the technology to automate all meaningful production, but people still need to justify their existence through often meaningless labor?

That said, I know artists that make the bare minimum to survive, on purpose, so they have more time to focus on art.

[nani8ot]

Yes, as long as they have enough to survive, people generally have some free time. I know someone who's living paycheck to paycheck and they make music as a hobby. Obviously, if you have to work 16 hours a day to survive they wouldn't do it – or at least they wouldn't have the capacity to share it.

[lukifer]

"I'm not a capitalist, I am a creativist... Capitalists make things to make money, I like to make money to make things." - Eddie Izzard

It's more about the viability of making any kind of living from one's creative work, not motivation to create. (Though for creative works with large upfront costs, eg films, ROI motivation is relevant for backers.)