[praptak]

"But it’s an unfortunate fact that there have never been, and I ultimately realized there never will be, any royalties paid to the people who write or draw or otherwise create all the Disney comics you’ve ever read."

Please remember the above quote next time you hear some corporate puppet bring up the "starving artist" argument in a copyright policy debate.

[skymt]

Don't frame it like that. It's dishonest.

Corporations withholding royalties from artists is obviously bad. But it's entirely consistent to condemn such abuse while still supporting the idea that artists ought to be repaid for their work.

[tptacek]

Corporations withholding royalties from salaried employees with whom no agreement was made regarding royalties is not "obviously bad".

[skymt]

Point taken. My objection was to praptak's generalized false dilemma of corporations cheating their employees versus weak copyright and widely accepted file sharing. Don Rosa's case is indeed more complex.

[njharman]

Tool. The corporate stooge has already framed it, dishonestly so. Using "starving artists" to argue increased control and ownership for corporations.

[jamesaguilar]

I don't understand what about it I should remember. Could you elaborate? I'm also not familiar with any general class of arguments called the "starving artist" argument. What are they and what do corporate puppets hope to prove using them?

[drcube]

The arguments against the evils of sharing copyrighted works with your friends online. The arguments for ridiculous "life of the author plus a century" copyright terms. Disney is a huge purveyor of these bogus arguments, all while stiffing the content creators who work for them.

[jamesaguilar]

Oh. But Disney comics is the only case where no royalties are ever paid, at least according to Don in this article. I don't think he'd want us using those words as a blanket permission to pirate copyrighted works.

[drcube]

No, but it highlights the hypocrisy of the largest anti-sharing organization. Movie studios and record labels are also generally lousy to the talent they make their money off of. Treating creators like shit while outwardly pretending to care about them to advance your business interests makes your whole side look bad.

[snowwrestler]

When we talk about copyright policy, or enforcement, the effects are not limited to the big rich companies that it is easy to hate.

There are plenty of artist-friendly, or artist-owned, labels and distributions companies, and they are also hurt by piracy. In fact I would argue they are hurt more than the big labels, because each individual missed sale is a bigger percentage of their total revenue.

[MichaelGG]

Considering people buy for convenience or to support the artist, I'd say a small label benefits more from piracy. The big labels with extensive marketing are going to gain less fans from piracy. While I might torrent a well-known group to try it out, chances are I'm already acquainted.

Whereas with a small group, pirating a torrent of stuff might be a way I actually discover an artist. I know I've downloaded big "mix" torrents, come across some stuff I like, then went to Amazon and bought all the downloads they had for that artist. Without the piracy, I'd have never found them.

On top of that, I think (perhaps incorrectly), that when you buy from a small label, you're promoting more good than buying from the big labels that will use my money to campaign for things I'm against. I know I have a few artists I like, but I'm not going to give money to folks that push for less due process.

Of course, actual data is hard to come by: it's not like you can accurately track torrent downloads/disk swaps and compare conversion rates.

[njharman]

Where's your proof those are hurt more or at all by piracy? I've seen just the opposite, sharing increasing sales/revenue.

[Angostura]

It's an unusual situation, royalties in most situations are the rule. And that's a good thing, right? Right?