Author Topic: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?  (Read 59243 times)


libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #51 on: September 02, 2016, 05:48:01 PM »
I was just thinking today about how rampant, unfettered piracy and ad-block plug-ins forced me to give up on my dream of being a professional writer. Looking around, technology has pretty much laid waste to every career in the arts in the United States.

Because Stephen King, Taylor Swift, and John Travolta just can't seem to make ends meet?

I'm not even sure what you are talking about, there are plenty of people working "in the arts" who are making boatloads of money.

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #52 on: September 02, 2016, 05:56:39 PM »
Looking around, technology has pretty much laid waste to every career in the arts in the United States.

As someone who does web design/development for a living, I have to disagree with this! Every company needs a website, and someone needs to design it. Those websites need also written content and photography, along with someone to handle writing their social media and blog/news items.

Technological advancement has especially opened up new artistic possibilities for those with an entrepreneurial spirit. You can teach yourself Wordpress for free online and have your own website company. Anyone who wants to write a novel but can't get into a publishing house can self-publish and promote their own work online. Musicians don't have to wait to get discovered by a record label - they can publish and distribute music online and build a following on their own. Same with visual artists, you can scan and upload your works and sell on-demand on canvas/paper/t-shirts/etc. very easily.

Sorry, but you are completely incorrect about this. If the internet was so great for artists, then bands wouldn't need Pledge Music to beg for money to release albums and go on tour.


Might I suggest that the fact that YOU can't figure out how to make a career in the arts does not mean that others have similarly failed?

Some of them owe their career almost entirely to the internet/youtube (Justin Bieber and many others in both singing and acting).

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #53 on: September 04, 2016, 06:34:50 PM »
I was just thinking today about how rampant, unfettered piracy and ad-block plug-ins forced me to give up on my dream of being a professional writer. Looking around, technology has pretty much laid waste to every career in the arts in the United States.

Because Stephen King, Taylor Swift, and John Travolta just can't seem to make ends meet?

I'm not even sure what you are talking about, there are plenty of people working "in the arts" who are making boatloads of money.

Forgive me if I am incorrect but from the references in this post as well as other posts you have made, I assume that you are an older person (maybe in your 50s?). In any case, I'm sure you had a great time in the 1990s during the Clinton years where it was really difficult not to be financially successful. Unfortunately for people of my generation or younger, George W. Bush came along and destroyed the economy of the entire planet and now we have to live with that. Part of the problem is that we allowed mega-corporations like Google to profit handsomely from piracy, while refusing to update copyright laws to cover digital media. That's why companies like Google (ie YouTube), SiriusXM, Spotify, Pandora, etc. pay almost nothing in royalties to artists while they rake in the cash.

For example, the rock band Filter proved with statistics that they would need over 100 million plays of one of their albums to make the same amount of money that a Spotify employee makes in a year. For someone who sell mass-market bubblegum pop like Taylor Swift that might be easy to accomplish, but for the average artist who in the old days would have sold maybe 1 million records, it's an impossibility.

So basically, artists produce content and other people get paid for it instead of them. That's why the guitarist of Gemini Syndrome retired from music to rent out rooms of his mother's house on AirBnB instead. He made only $18,000/year despite touring continuously and having one of the top rock n' roll records of 2013.

I would never advocate criminality -- especially since it's against the TOS -- but I think if people on this forum were truly honest they would admit that a lot of their lifestyle is funded by piracy and other illegal activities. How many of us actually pay income taxes on our side hustles? How many of us do unpermitted work on our houses or businesses? How many of us download movies and music instead of paying for them? Sure, it saves people a few bucks here and there, but it is costing us a lot more as a society.

The rise of Donald Trump -- as well as the return of communism, which was thought to be a dead ideology -- is directly related to the fact that we've killed many of the ways that people used to make a living. We can cluck at these people and make fun of them, but we have purposefully and willfully screwed them out of an income.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #54 on: September 04, 2016, 07:45:31 PM »
... you have a highly inflated perspective on how easy it was to "make it" as an artist in the 1990s.

The problem is your attitude about what working "in the arts" means is that the rest of society subsidizes your creative pursuits. This has never been the case. Similarly, you are ignoring the fact that while the Internet has made it easier to pirate, the majority of the artists who are being destroyed by the Internet would have never had enough popularity to even have the Internet hurt them.

For example, the rock band Filter proved with statistics that they would need over 100 million plays of one of their albums to make the same amount of money that a Spotify employee makes in a year. For someone who sell mass-market bubblegum pop like Taylor Swift that might be easy to accomplish, but for the average artist who in the old days would have sold maybe 1 million records, it's an impossibility.

How many artists do you think in "the old days" actually sold 1 million records?

Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #55 on: September 04, 2016, 08:21:27 PM »
In general, the arts have not been profitable for the vast majority of practitioners in all eras of human history. Previously it was because most people did not have money to buy artworks, and the wealthy families patronized only a few artists who were popular during the time. I think in the modern era this is mostly due to people not valuing most artists' work enough to pay a significant amount of money to them. A small fraction of artists are valued, and they have profited well. Piracy or not, if people valued the music enough, they would pay for it. The fact that most people are willing to steal rather than pay indicates how little regard they have for most artists' work.

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8956
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #56 on: September 04, 2016, 08:27:19 PM »
Clearly the person having their rib removed for pay understood the business side of art.

They produced a product that people wanted to buy at a cost that netted them a profit (and which they were willing to pay).

Kudos to them for making a bundle.   They clearly have some business savvy and a finger on the pulse of their target demographic.


I never said it had to be useful product.

FYI, your distinction of goldsmithing being a "craft" and not an "art" is, to my mind, foolish and snobbish.   


arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #57 on: September 04, 2016, 08:34:40 PM »
Part of the problem is that we allowed mega-corporations like Google to profit handsomely from piracy, while refusing to update copyright laws to cover digital media
...
I would never advocate criminality -- especially since it's against the TOS -- but I think if people on this forum were truly honest they would admit that a lot of their lifestyle is funded by piracy and other illegal activities.
...
How many of us download movies and music instead of paying for them? Sure, it saves people a few bucks here and there, but it is costing us a lot more as a society.

you are ignoring the fact that while the Internet has made it easier to pirate, the majority of the artists who are being destroyed by the Internet would have never had enough popularity to even have the Internet hurt them.

And let's not forget that pirates spend way more on media.  Study after study after study has shown this.
2009: Study finds pirates 10 times more likely to buy music
2012: Dear RIAA: Pirates Buy More. Full Stop. Deal With It.
2013: ‘Worst’ File-Sharing Pirates Spend 300% More on Content Than ‘Honest’ Consumers
2016: Pirates Spend Much More Money on Music, Study Shows

Read the final 2016 one that I bolded, if nothing else.

Those were 4 of the first 5 links on Google for "pirates spend more" (the other being about the Pittsburgh Pirates baseball team). I just put the date the article was published, so there may be some overlap in studies.  You can feel free to dig further than the first few Google links, but the data overwhelmingly shows the opposite of your claim about people pirating to save money.

If artists are losing out (and I don't think they are), figure out a solution.  Maybe the problem is the labels, or streaming companies, or whatever.  But blaming "pirates" is laughable.  "Pirates" tend to get those artists visibility, spread their music, and then spend even more to purchase it, plus become fans that attend live shows, buy merchandise, etc.  The Internet has been great for artists.. don't buy RIAA propaganda otherwise.

Piracy or not, if people valued the music enough, they would pay for it. The fact that most people are willing to steal rather than pay indicates how little regard they have for most artists' work.

As above from that 2016 link, pirates tend to pay more for music than the average person, and even pay more for music than the average music purchaser!  So if people aren't willing to pay, it's not because they're stealing it, in general, it's because they don't want that content.  You're 100% correct that they have little regard for it, and that's because it doesn't interest them.  That's not society's fault.

People need to stop buying media narratives about things.  :)
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #58 on: September 04, 2016, 09:55:35 PM »
Part of the problem is that we allowed mega-corporations like Google to profit handsomely from piracy, while refusing to update copyright laws to cover digital media
...
I would never advocate criminality -- especially since it's against the TOS -- but I think if people on this forum were truly honest they would admit that a lot of their lifestyle is funded by piracy and other illegal activities.
...
How many of us download movies and music instead of paying for them? Sure, it saves people a few bucks here and there, but it is costing us a lot more as a society.

you are ignoring the fact that while the Internet has made it easier to pirate, the majority of the artists who are being destroyed by the Internet would have never had enough popularity to even have the Internet hurt them.

And let's not forget that pirates spend way more on media.  Study after study after study has shown this.
2009: Study finds pirates 10 times more likely to buy music
2012: Dear RIAA: Pirates Buy More. Full Stop. Deal With It.
2013: ‘Worst’ File-Sharing Pirates Spend 300% More on Content Than ‘Honest’ Consumers
2016: Pirates Spend Much More Money on Music, Study Shows

Read the final 2016 one that I bolded, if nothing else.

Those were 4 of the first 5 links on Google for "pirates spend more" (the other being about the Pittsburgh Pirates baseball team). I just put the date the article was published, so there may be some overlap in studies.  You can feel free to dig further than the first few Google links, but the data overwhelmingly shows the opposite of your claim about people pirating to save money.

If artists are losing out (and I don't think they are), figure out a solution.  Maybe the problem is the labels, or streaming companies, or whatever.  But blaming "pirates" is laughable.  "Pirates" tend to get those artists visibility, spread their music, and then spend even more to purchase it, plus become fans that attend live shows, buy merchandise, etc.  The Internet has been great for artists.. don't buy RIAA propaganda otherwise.

Piracy or not, if people valued the music enough, they would pay for it. The fact that most people are willing to steal rather than pay indicates how little regard they have for most artists' work.

As above from that 2016 link, pirates tend to pay more for music than the average person, and even pay more for music than the average music purchaser!  So if people aren't willing to pay, it's not because they're stealing it, in general, it's because they don't want that content.  You're 100% correct that they have little regard for it, and that's because it doesn't interest them.  That's not society's fault.

People need to stop buying media narratives about things.  :)

No offense intended, but your entire argument sounds like someone trying to justify criminal activity. Of course, pirates are going to self-report that they buy more music than other people. They know that what they do is wrong and they make up excuses for themselves. They may even actually believe that what they are saying is true, because the reality is ugly. People are getting free stuff because they can. At the moment, there are no consequences for stealing a lot of stuff from people, so everyone is doing it. The only force in America that actually has the power to put a stop to it is the US Government, but they are in the pockets of companies that are making massive profits from piracy, so it's not going to end.

That leaves people with two choices: 1.) Give up on being an artist and go to work in a service industry that hasn't been automated out of existence yet, or 2.) Give up on being an artist and a way to join in on profiting from criminal activity. Neither of those options sounds particularly appealing to me.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #59 on: September 04, 2016, 10:32:22 PM »
The only force in America that actually has the power to put a stop to it is the US Government, but they are in the pockets of companies that are making massive profits from piracy, so it's not going to end.

Huh?  If anything, the government is in the pockets of the companies who are anti-piracy, like the RIAA.  That is why there is adisproportionate sentences and jail time for people who share content (as in, decades, millions of dollars.. sentences worse than you'd get for raping someone, etc.).

You mentioned Google as an example earlier of a company making money from piracy.  They make tons on YouTube from copyright infringement, perhaps, but Google doesn't benefit from someone downloading a song or movie from a torrent.

Give me an example of a company that benefits if something is downloaded from ThePirateBay (besides the company that created the content), and how the US government is "in their pocket."

As far as pirates and spending, your dismissing data because it doesn't fit your preconstructed narrative is laughable.

That leaves people with two choices: 1.) Give up on being an artist and go to work in a service industry that hasn't been automated out of existence yet, or 2.) Give up on being an artist and a way to join in on profiting from criminal activity. Neither of those options sounds particularly appealing to me.

False dilemma much?  How about secret option 3: Use the Internet as a free platform for spreading your work, and make a living off of that doing what you love.  Yay!

More people publish books now than ever.  Or create music.  Videos.  Art.  The Internet has made it possible for an individual to reach a huge following without the backing of major corporations or record labels.  Whether they get rich, or not, its enabling as a medium of artistic bents is far beyond anything we've ever seen, and opens up all kinds of creative possibilities for living.

Being a YouTube content creator, for example, can make you tons of money by providing value.  Say you enjoy making wooden furniture.  You could barely sell enough at your local farmer's market to scrape by.  Now you can upload videos of how to do it and make much more online, while using it as a platform to promote your work.  Who, exactly, is "pirating" in this scenario?  Who is losing out from that?
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

MrDelane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 618
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #60 on: September 04, 2016, 10:40:28 PM »
That leaves people with two choices: 1.) Give up on being an artist and go to work in a service industry that hasn't been automated out of existence yet, or 2.) Give up on being an artist and a way to join in on profiting from criminal activity. Neither of those options sounds particularly appealing to me.

Given that we still have artists, I'm assuming there are other options as well that you haven't listed.
Things definitely aren't easy for artists (they never have been) but I have to say it's easier today than it was pre-internet, that's for certain.

I would focus your energy on what you can do to better your craft as opposed to articulating reasons for failure.  I'm not saying that will guarantee success, but it will definitely have a greater chance of leading to happiness than the alternative.

MrDelane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 618
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #61 on: September 04, 2016, 10:44:54 PM »
Being a YouTube content creator, for example, can make you tons of money by providing value.  Say you enjoy making wooden furniture.  You could barely sell enough at your local farmer's market to scrape by.  Now you can upload videos of how to do it and make much more online, while using it as a platform to promote your work.  Who, exactly, is "pirating" in this scenario?  Who is losing out from that?

Wow, well this is strange!

No joke, we bought our bed from a woodworker across the country who does tutorials on Youtube.
Handmade, incredible craftsmanship, and we never would have found him otherwise.

Seriously... that's kinda spooky that you happened to pull that example as a hypothetical.


arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #62 on: September 05, 2016, 12:05:12 AM »
Being a YouTube content creator, for example, can make you tons of money by providing value.  Say you enjoy making wooden furniture.  You could barely sell enough at your local farmer's market to scrape by.  Now you can upload videos of how to do it and make much more online, while using it as a platform to promote your work.  Who, exactly, is "pirating" in this scenario?  Who is losing out from that?

Wow, well this is strange!

No joke, we bought our bed from a woodworker across the country who does tutorials on Youtube.
Handmade, incredible craftsmanship, and we never would have found him otherwise.

Seriously... that's kinda spooky that you happened to pull that example as a hypothetical.

That is really weird, cause I made it up off the top of my head.

Awesome that the hypothetical is a real thing, good for him for being able to monetize his art and skills in that way.  Thanks for sharing that (and confirming that these sot of hypotheticals can and do happen), and way to go supporting him!  :D
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

expatartist

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2270
  • Location: Hong Kong/Paris
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #63 on: September 05, 2016, 12:13:55 AM »
Clearly the person having their rib removed for pay understood the business side of art.

They produced a product that people wanted to buy at a cost that netted them a profit (and which they were willing to pay).

Kudos to them for making a bundle.   They clearly have some business savvy and a finger on the pulse of their target demographic.

Chinese society has a much more pragmatic view of money in general, as do Chinese artists. It's a very different, and instructive point of view that could be useful to many western artists.

I never said it had to be useful product.

FYI, your distinction of goldsmithing being a "craft" and not an "art" is, to my mind, foolish and snobbish.   

I never said it wasn't art, just that it's not contemporary art. Goldsmithing as an artform is not sold by contemporary art dealers - though hey I'm sure an exception or two exists - nor does it appear at contemporary art fairs, museums of contemporary art, etc. As a medium it is not taught in contemporary arts programs. The training is different, the context is different, the pricing is different: based in significant part on the value of the material itself.

It is created and sold in a different way than contemporary art, that's all. No insult intended.

electriceagle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 521
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #64 on: September 05, 2016, 04:13:54 AM »
Maybe you could ask JK Rowling? I am no expert, but I think she is an artist, and she appears to be squeaking by.

I think this is the key.

Due to ease of distribution, artists (and other intellectual professionals) must compete with the best in their field all over the world (or at least within their cultural sphere). The very best, as voted with dollars, do great. However, there isn't much room for those who are merely "quite good".

Contrast this with, for instance, plumbing. You only need to be one of the top few within 30 miles to make a fine living.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #65 on: September 05, 2016, 04:51:41 AM »
Maybe you could ask JK Rowling? I am no expert, but I think she is an artist, and she appears to be squeaking by.

I think this is the key.

Due to ease of distribution, artists (and other intellectual professionals) must compete with the best in their field all over the world (or at least within their cultural sphere). The very best, as voted with dollars, do great. However, there isn't much room for those who are merely "quite good".

Contrast this with, for instance, plumbing. You only need to be one of the top few within 30 miles to make a fine living.

If you want to have worldwide recognition, reach, and fame, yes, you have to compete with the best in your field.

If you just want local or smaller success, that is possible as well.  My wife was able to publish a book.  It'll never sell as much as a JK Rowling book, but she doesn't care about that.  An artist or photographer painting (or shooting) and selling his paintings (or photos) locally, say, at a farmer's market, may never be as famous as Picasso or Adams, but they may be able to do alright.

Of course if you want global reach, you'll compete with the best, but even smaller scale is totally possible.  Self-publishing is allowing more people than ever to get their written works out there.  Online is allowing photographers, videographers, etc. to publish and share their work.  No, every one of those won't be a billionaire from their work.  That doesn't mean they're a failure, either.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #66 on: September 05, 2016, 06:54:40 AM »
More people publish books now than ever.  Or create music.  Videos.  Art.  The Internet has made it possible for an individual to reach a huge following without the backing of major corporations or record labels.  Whether they get rich, or not, its enabling as a medium of artistic bents is far beyond anything we've ever seen, and opens up all kinds of creative possibilities for living.

Another point regarding the bolded - previously if you wanted to "make it big" as a musician, you basically were required to go through a big record label prior to the Internet. This wasn't exactly a trivial nor profitable process for most musicians.

If you are into the "indie" music scene, there are so many up and coming bands which are great. When I worked at a small concert venue, nearly all the bands we had come through were not associated with a record label and had their ability to be on tour or performing completely because of their Internet presence. I think the OP is oblivious to this.

Now, with the Internet, anyone wanting to create music can reach a global audience. But the key is:

If you want to have worldwide recognition, reach, and fame, yes, you have to compete with the best in your field.

If you just want local or smaller success, that is possible as well.  My wife was able to publish a book.  It'll never sell as much as a JK Rowling book, but she doesn't care about that.  An artist or photographer painting (or shooting) and selling his paintings (or photos) locally, say, at a farmer's market, may never be as famous as Picasso or Adams, but they may be able to do alright.

Of course if you want global reach, you'll compete with the best, but even smaller scale is totally possible.  Self-publishing is allowing more people than ever to get their written works out there.  Online is allowing photographers, videographers, etc. to publish and share their work.  No, every one of those won't be a billionaire from their work.  That doesn't mean they're a failure, either.

You can't just be a mediocre musician to achieve grand success on a national or global scale. And I guess I'm fine with that.

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8956
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #67 on: September 05, 2016, 09:09:33 AM »

I would never advocate criminality -- especially since it's against the TOS -- but I think if people on this forum were truly honest they would admit that a lot of their lifestyle is funded by piracy and other illegal activities. How many of us actually pay income taxes on our side hustles? How many of us do unpermitted work on our houses or businesses? How many of us download movies and music instead of paying for them? Sure, it saves people a few bucks here and there, but it is costing us a lot more as a society.


Yep.  I pay income tax on my side hustles.   

Even back in the day, when my wife and I were dirt poor, making 1/3 median family income and paying child support, too, we paid income tax on our side hustles.   

Nope, don't do unpermitted work on my property.

Nope, don't download movies illegally.   

I'll illegally try a software product before I buy it if they don't provide a legal trial version to check out.  Why?  Because the software companies do not warrant that their product works, nor do they warrant that it is useful for any purpose.   Software quality is so bad that I can buy an empty CD that has a 10 year warranty on it, but if that media comes with software on it, the warranty may only be for 90 days on the media.  If they aren't willing to stand behind their product, I'm not willing to pay for it until I know it works.  But, if it works to my satisfaction and I decide to use it for real, I pay for it.




MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #68 on: September 05, 2016, 09:13:38 AM »
Free stuff sure is addictive. It's like the 21st century version of cocaine.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #70 on: September 05, 2016, 08:09:50 PM »
Free stuff sure is addictive. It's like the 21st century version of cocaine.

And let's not forget that pirates spend way more on media.  Study after study after study has shown this.
2009: Study finds pirates 10 times more likely to buy music
2012: Dear RIAA: Pirates Buy More. Full Stop. Deal With It.
2013: ‘Worst’ File-Sharing Pirates Spend 300% More on Content Than ‘Honest’ Consumers
2016: Pirates Spend Much More Money on Music, Study Shows



(emphasis mine)

Teenage boys in the United States also have an average of 600 sexual partners each. Self-reported surveys are so accurate and reliable.

MrDelane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 618
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #71 on: September 05, 2016, 09:24:15 PM »
Teenage boys in the United States also have an average of 600 sexual partners each. Self-reported surveys are so accurate and reliable.

I haven't read all the links Arebelspy posted, but since you mentioned that critique numerous times I decided to take a look at one of them at least.

From the first link listed:

"Wisely, the study did not rely on music pirates' honesty. Researchers asked music buyers to prove that they had proof of purchase."

Kriegsspiel

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 962
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #72 on: September 05, 2016, 10:04:40 PM »
Free stuff sure is addictive. It's like the 21st century version of cocaine.

And let's not forget that pirates spend way more on media.  Study after study after study has shown this.
2009: Study finds pirates 10 times more likely to buy music
2012: Dear RIAA: Pirates Buy More. Full Stop. Deal With It.
2013: ‘Worst’ File-Sharing Pirates Spend 300% More on Content Than ‘Honest’ Consumers
2016: Pirates Spend Much More Money on Music, Study Shows



(emphasis mine)

Teenage boys in the United States also have an average of 600 sexual partners each. Self-reported surveys are so accurate and reliable.

Hmm, I see this has slightly decreased since I was a teen. Zika?

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #73 on: September 05, 2016, 10:54:08 PM »
Teenage boys in the United States also have an average of 600 sexual partners each. Self-reported surveys are so accurate and reliable.

I haven't read all the links Arebelspy posted, but since you mentioned that critique numerous times I decided to take a look at one of them at least.

From the first link listed:

"Wisely, the study did not rely on music pirates' honesty. Researchers asked music buyers to prove that they had proof of purchase."
It's 2016. The data doesn't matter if it doesn't fit your narrative. ;)
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #74 on: September 06, 2016, 06:11:23 AM »
I would never advocate criminality -- especially since it's against the TOS -- but I think if people on this forum were truly honest they would admit that a lot of their lifestyle is funded by piracy and other illegal activities. How many of us actually pay income taxes on our side hustles? How many of us do unpermitted work on our houses or businesses? How many of us download movies and music instead of paying for them? Sure, it saves people a few bucks here and there, but it is costing us a lot more as a society.

Seriously? You're trying to equate not getting somebody else's permission to modify your own damn property with "ciminality?" No wonder you have such a hard-on for copyright; it's all the same vein of ridiculous authoritarianism!

The real question is not how much copyright infringement costs society (I would argue $0, or less); the real question is how much does copyright itself cost society in its theft from the Public Domain!

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #75 on: September 06, 2016, 07:27:59 AM »
I look at this from both the legal perspective and the creative perspective.

Yes, it's harder to get "noticed" these days, at least as a writer, because the gatekeepers have lost much (most?)(almost all?) of their control over what gets published. I see this as both a bad thing and a good thing for writers and readers alike.

I try to be kind to other writers, because anyone who puts himself or herself "out there" and devotes so much time to a project deserves some props. It's not for the faint of heart. But...at the same time, so much content is really...dreadful. I mean really bad. But guess what? It's on Amazon just like the "quality" books are. So yeah it's easier to get your book to the marketplace but that marketplace is SUPER crowded, sometimes so crowded that it doesn't do you much good to be in the marketplace in the first place.

And talk about pricing! So many people offer free books (in the hope that they'll "hook" future readers) that more and more people expect free. How dare I charge a few bucks for a e-book or an text-based app or even a paperback! It's all just words, right? Words should be free! (this is their argument)

So yeah it's hard to be profitable, at least as a writer. I will earn about $15,000 this year, and that's well above average for a first-time writer. Most of that is profit, as I spent some on promotion, social media, art, a few trade shows, etc. But my sales will slow down soon, and if I don't crank out a sequel, and if it's not the same quality (or better), then it all tanks.

And re: piracy. My publisher intentionally sets their prices low (think between $3-$5) because industry studies show that most pirates don't bother with bootlegs of such cheap content. Once you get into the >$10 space, it's a whole different story.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #76 on: September 06, 2016, 07:51:12 AM »
I look at this from both the legal perspective and the creative perspective.

Yes, it's harder to get "noticed" these days, at least as a writer, because the gatekeepers have lost much (most?)(almost all?) of their control over what gets published. I see this as both a bad thing and a good thing for writers and readers alike.

I try to be kind to other writers, because anyone who puts himself or herself "out there" and devotes so much time to a project deserves some props. It's not for the faint of heart. But...at the same time, so much content is really...dreadful. I mean really bad. But guess what? It's on Amazon just like the "quality" books are. So yeah it's easier to get your book to the marketplace but that marketplace is SUPER crowded, sometimes so crowded that it doesn't do you much good to be in the marketplace in the first place.

And talk about pricing! So many people offer free books (in the hope that they'll "hook" future readers) that more and more people expect free. How dare I charge a few bucks for a e-book or an text-based app or even a paperback! It's all just words, right? Words should be free! (this is their argument)

So yeah it's hard to be profitable, at least as a writer. I will earn about $15,000 this year, and that's well above average for a first-time writer. Most of that is profit, as I spent some on promotion, social media, art, a few trade shows, etc. But my sales will slow down soon, and if I don't crank out a sequel, and if it's not the same quality (or better), then it all tanks.

And re: piracy. My publisher intentionally sets their prices low (think between $3-$5) because industry studies show that most pirates don't bother with bootlegs of such cheap content. Once you get into the >$10 space, it's a whole different story.

Nick:

As a non-writer, but voracious reader - It seems as if the internet has allowed you to earn something whereas before, you either hooked up with a publisher or had virtually no chance.  Is that accurate?

There are several writers on amazon who have hooked me with a free or reduced price book and I have spent quite a bit with them after trying out their product.  Hope it becomes profitable for you.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #77 on: September 06, 2016, 08:15:22 AM »
I look at this from both the legal perspective and the creative perspective.

Yes, it's harder to get "noticed" these days, at least as a writer, because the gatekeepers have lost much (most?)(almost all?) of their control over what gets published. I see this as both a bad thing and a good thing for writers and readers alike.

I try to be kind to other writers, because anyone who puts himself or herself "out there" and devotes so much time to a project deserves some props. It's not for the faint of heart. But...at the same time, so much content is really...dreadful. I mean really bad. But guess what? It's on Amazon just like the "quality" books are. So yeah it's easier to get your book to the marketplace but that marketplace is SUPER crowded, sometimes so crowded that it doesn't do you much good to be in the marketplace in the first place.

And talk about pricing! So many people offer free books (in the hope that they'll "hook" future readers) that more and more people expect free. How dare I charge a few bucks for a e-book or an text-based app or even a paperback! It's all just words, right? Words should be free! (this is their argument)

So yeah it's hard to be profitable, at least as a writer. I will earn about $15,000 this year, and that's well above average for a first-time writer. Most of that is profit, as I spent some on promotion, social media, art, a few trade shows, etc. But my sales will slow down soon, and if I don't crank out a sequel, and if it's not the same quality (or better), then it all tanks.

And re: piracy. My publisher intentionally sets their prices low (think between $3-$5) because industry studies show that most pirates don't bother with bootlegs of such cheap content. Once you get into the >$10 space, it's a whole different story.

Nick:

As a non-writer, but voracious reader - It seems as if the internet has allowed you to earn something whereas before, you either hooked up with a publisher or had virtually no chance.  Is that accurate?

There are several writers on amazon who have hooked me with a free or reduced price book and I have spent quite a bit with them after trying out their product.  Hope it becomes profitable for you.

I think that's essentially correct, although I wasn't writing back in the "good ole days," so perhaps someone with first hand experience re: writing in the 80s and 90s might chime in.

And yeah the "freebie" thing has worked with some writers I know, although that's admittedly based on their assertions to me. I just can't get past of giving away something you've spent months or years working on. I think it devalues your work.

And I'm definitely making a profit! No worries here. With about 500 hours into the project, and after spending about $2,000 out of pocket, I've earned about $26/per hour invested, and that "hourly rate" will increase over the coming months and even years. I've been somewhat lucky to get a good initial reception with lots of positive reviews, when in turn assure additional buyers that my book isn't a waste of their money.

Writers are notoriously secretive about sales, profits, etc., so it's difficult to get accurate information re: who is making money and who is basically writing as a hobby . I tend to be an open book (pun intended!)
« Last Edit: September 06, 2016, 08:18:52 AM by Nick_Miller »

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #78 on: September 06, 2016, 08:32:20 AM »

I think that's essentially correct, although I wasn't writing back in the "good ole days," so perhaps someone with first hand experience re: writing in the 80s and 90s might chime in.

And yeah the "freebie" thing has worked with some writers I know, although that's admittedly based on their assertions to me. I just can't get past of giving away something you've spent months or years working on. I think it devalues your work.

And I'm definitely making a profit! No worries here. With about 500 hours into the project, and after spending about $2,000 out of pocket, I've earned about $26/per hour invested, and that "hourly rate" will increase over the coming months and even years. I've been somewhat lucky to get a good initial reception with lots of positive reviews, when in turn assure additional buyers that my book isn't a waste of their money.

Have you read or familair with Russell Blake on Amazon?  If not, you might spend a couple of minutes evaluating his model.  He seems to churn out a good product at a reasonable (typically $5 or less).  Lots of inexpensive good quality books.  I don't think he uses a publisher or print books.

Given the number of books he writes and the price point, I would suspect he is doing reasonably well (I'm assuming he wouldn't be such a prolific writer if he wasn't successful).  I found his books through a free or reduced price offering.  Wish you the best on your endeavor.

ariapluscat

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #79 on: September 06, 2016, 12:12:34 PM »
This thread is hilariously misinformed.

OP, if you want advice on working in a museum or college in the arts field, pm me.

EMP

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #80 on: September 06, 2016, 01:02:22 PM »
I can't get over the way the majority on this thread are aboard the you suck or you're lazy train and that's why you can't make a living.  I thought the Forbes article did a good job, with statistics and everything, showing that income inequality is damaging the arts as well.

I guess if you only see hobbyists working on a regular basis, you are likely to think they aren't very good or if only they put in a few more hours a week they would be more successful. Well, no shit, Sherlock. If you can't make a living doing art, it will take longer to home your craft into it's highest form. If you don't have time to constantly promote, it doesn't matter how good you are, chances the right people will be exposed go from slim to nil.

I also don't understand the idea that an artist deserves a life of penury. My favorite obscure musicians have had a more positive impact on my life than some corporate bullshit artist tinkering with spreadsheets.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #81 on: September 06, 2016, 01:16:39 PM »
I also don't understand the idea that an artist deserves a life of penury.

That's the wrong question, and phrased unfairly to boot.

First of all, nobody "deserves" any particular lifestyle just from deciding on what they want to do; they only "deserve" the lifestyle their clients or employer is willing to pay them to afford.

Second, why do you think artists "deserve" special treatment compared to people who chose more lucrative or less fun occupations? Do you think all the fast-food workers and garbagemen of the world are self-actualized and prefer those things to doing art? If artists "deserve" to be paid, why shouldn't everyone be paid to do art?

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #82 on: September 06, 2016, 01:24:45 PM »
If artists "deserve" to be paid, why shouldn't everyone be paid

UBI!

:)
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #83 on: September 06, 2016, 01:35:42 PM »
I guess if you only see hobbyists working on a regular basis, you are likely to think they aren't very good or if only they put in a few more hours a week they would be more successful. Well, no shit, Sherlock. If you can't make a living doing art, it will take longer to home your craft into it's highest form. If you don't have time to constantly promote, it doesn't matter how good you are, chances the right people will be exposed go from slim to nil.

Fortunately, there is this fancy new tool which lets artists advertise and sell their work globally that is a relatively recent invention over the past few decades.

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #84 on: September 06, 2016, 02:06:07 PM »
I guess if you only see hobbyists working on a regular basis, you are likely to think they aren't very good or if only they put in a few more hours a week they would be more successful. Well, no shit, Sherlock. If you can't make a living doing art, it will take longer to home your craft into it's highest form. If you don't have time to constantly promote, it doesn't matter how good you are, chances the right people will be exposed go from slim to nil.

Fortunately, there is this fancy new tool which lets artists unintentionally give away their work for free to people that is a relatively recent invention over the past few decades.

Fixed your post for you. I stand 100% by what I said. If you want to make money, go into business or STEM. Then after you make your fortune, you can retire to the countryside and write novels or make artwork to give away for free to people. There is no longer any money to be made in the Arts.

And you can trot out the one or two people who have managed to do the impossible, but they are such a small number that they may as well not even exist. It's like people saying you shouldn't wear your seatbelt because of that one guy who didn't wear his and was able to escape from a fiery car wreck because the seatbelt didn't bind him inside the car. It's ridiculous to focus on miniscule exceptions and completely ignore universal truths in the process.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #85 on: September 06, 2016, 02:30:31 PM »
If you want to make money, go into business or STEM. Then after you make your fortune, you can retire to the countryside and write novels or make artwork to give away for free to people.

That's always been the case.  Art was never a way to get rich.  The idle rich, and the very select best in the world could art without needing another job.  That's how it's always been. 

Quote
There is no longer any money to be made in the Arts.

When was there?  Some  magical "good ol days"?

It's closer to being a career nowadays, and one can make money at it easier today than any time before.  It's still not totally viable, but much more so now than ever.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2016, 02:32:16 PM by arebelspy »
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #86 on: September 06, 2016, 02:37:28 PM »
I guess if you only see hobbyists working on a regular basis, you are likely to think they aren't very good or if only they put in a few more hours a week they would be more successful. Well, no shit, Sherlock. If you can't make a living doing art, it will take longer to home your craft into it's highest form. If you don't have time to constantly promote, it doesn't matter how good you are, chances the right people will be exposed go from slim to nil.

Fortunately, there is this fancy new tool which lets artists unintentionally give away their work for free to people that is a relatively recent invention over the past few decades.

Fixed your post for you. I stand 100% by what I said. If you want to make money, go into business or STEM. Then after you make your fortune, you can retire to the countryside and write novels or make artwork to give away for free to people. There is no longer any money to be made in the Arts.

And you can trot out the one or two people who have managed to do the impossible, but they are such a small number that they may as well not even exist. It's like people saying you shouldn't wear your seatbelt because of that one guy who didn't wear his and was able to escape from a fiery car wreck because the seatbelt didn't bind him inside the car. It's ridiculous to focus on miniscule exceptions and completely ignore universal truths in the process.

Isn't that like most other careers with a high risk/reward?  Few kids become professional athletes, but many would like to.  I don't see an argument that we should support their dreams.  I'm telling my kids to find a career that supports them and live below their means so they can do something besides work.

As for things changing for the worse for artists, do you have a source to support that?  Yes artists have their work stolen and it is wrong.  The flipside is the internet opens up so many ways of selling their product that simply did not exist previously.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #87 on: September 06, 2016, 02:56:40 PM »
I guess if you only see hobbyists working on a regular basis, you are likely to think they aren't very good or if only they put in a few more hours a week they would be more successful. Well, no shit, Sherlock. If you can't make a living doing art, it will take longer to home your craft into it's highest form. If you don't have time to constantly promote, it doesn't matter how good you are, chances the right people will be exposed go from slim to nil.

Fortunately, there is this fancy new tool which lets artists unintentionally give away their work for free to people that is a relatively recent invention over the past few decades.

Fixed your post for you. I stand 100% by what I said. If you want to make money, go into business or STEM. Then after you make your fortune, you can retire to the countryside and write novels or make artwork to give away for free to people. There is no longer any money to be made in the Arts.

And you can trot out the one or two people who have managed to do the impossible, but they are such a small number that they may as well not even exist. It's like people saying you shouldn't wear your seatbelt because of that one guy who didn't wear his and was able to escape from a fiery car wreck because the seatbelt didn't bind him inside the car. It's ridiculous to focus on miniscule exceptions and completely ignore universal truths in the process.

The Internet has absolutely increased both my visibility as well as the amount I would have otherwise spent on the arts.

With respect to music, I have heard and purchased CDs from many obscure artists that I would never have heard of without the Internet providing them free publicity (other than their time input). With rare exception, every band I have gone to see live in the past 5-10 years has not been associated with a major record label - this basically means, without the Internet, they don't exist in a way I can consume. This entire niche of music exists because of Internet publicity.

You can claim it's not the case. But for me and the dozens of bands I've seen live, in person, over this time period, their ability to exist in any meaningful way was exclusively dependent on their ability to advertise, market, and promote themselves online. Not being associated with a major record label meant you were pretty much out of luck for a musician pre-Internet. If you were lucky, you could play in a bar and get exposure and hopefully sign with a big company (you realize this is how the Beatles got popular, working with an agent to get signed on with a major record company). There's even an entire wikipedia page dedicated to this concept. Notice how often "the Internet" is listed as a reason it is possible for them to survive.

There are independent authors here posting on this board of their financial success with writing content - even part time! Are you calling them liars?

In the physical realm, the Internet has made insane benefits to independent sellers. Look around on etsy - there are hundreds upon hundreds of people selling their products in a way they simply could not have before.  Anecdotally, my wife and I have bought pottery from a seller hundreds of miles away. That sale would have not been possible pre-Internet.

Your objections simply aren't founded in reality. You lament, "to restore" without having made any clear evidence that the arts ever were consistently and systemically profitable for anyone who wanted to be an artist. You can't "restore" something to something it's never been. Plus you are straight up ignoring evidence, whether anecdotal or comprehensive, which is contrary to your dogmatically held viewpoint.


The problem here isn't a lament about the arts being profitable. It's that you want the arts to be profitable regardless of one's skill, abilities, or effort. You want artists to be horribly mediocre or bad and still make money doing it.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #88 on: September 06, 2016, 02:57:30 PM »
The flipside is the internet opens up so many ways of selling their product that simply did not exist previously.

Yup.  Plus the reach is incredible, especially for niche things.  There may be only a few hundred or a few thousand people, scattered across the world, who really love the type of art you make, but the ability to reach them now exists.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #89 on: September 06, 2016, 03:00:25 PM »
Look around on etsy - there are hundreds upon hundreds of people selling their products in a way they simply could not have before.  Anecdotally, my wife and I have bought pottery from a seller hundreds of miles away. That sale would have not been possible pre-Internet.

Etsy's a great example.  I have a friend that makes decent money selling bracelets on there.  Mrs. MM has an esty storefront as an outlet to sell some of her creative/artistic projects.  Will she make a living wage?  Probably not.  Is she trying to?  Nope.  But she can make some extra money at creating art, something not possible before, if she was trying to sell her crafts to her small village.  She'd need to also be laboring, in the day, most likely.  Something one may, or may not, have to do now as well.  But at least there's a potential outlet now.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4323
  • Age: 33
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #90 on: September 06, 2016, 03:11:05 PM »
The flipside is the internet opens up so many ways of selling their product that simply did not exist previously.

Yup.  Plus the reach is incredible, especially for niche things.  There may be only a few hundred or a few thousand people, scattered across the world, who really love the type of art you make, but the ability to reach them now exists.
This x1000.  My GF is in a *very* niche specialty (~4 real competitors in the country, definitely none in Australia, maybe a handful more worldwide) and there's no way she would have gotten the country-wide and world-wide recognition she has as quickly (or at all) without the internet.  She'd probably still be working her $11.50/hr "day job" at Costco for another few years.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #91 on: September 06, 2016, 03:18:38 PM »
The flipside is the internet opens up so many ways of selling their product that simply did not exist previously.

Yup.  Plus the reach is incredible, especially for niche things.  There may be only a few hundred or a few thousand people, scattered across the world, who really love the type of art you make, but the ability to reach them now exists.
This x1000.  My GF is in a *very* niche specialty (~4 real competitors in the country, definitely none in Australia, maybe a handful more worldwide) and there's no way she would have gotten the country-wide and world-wide recognition she has as quickly (or at all) without the internet.  She'd probably still be working her $11.50/hr "day job" at Costco for another few years.

Being an artist has always been a tough gig - but with the internet, it seems that you can at least get your craft visible by so many more folks these days.  Still no guarantee but I'm sure folks more talented than me with a marketing bent make it happen.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #92 on: September 06, 2016, 03:19:33 PM »
Yes artists have their work stolen and it is wrong.

No it isn't. Every artist has "stolen" from every other artist since the beginning of time -- that's what culture is: ideas building on each other. There is no such thing as a unique idea that can be "owned" (and a thing has to be owned to be stolen). Freeing an idea and distributing it far and wide, at zero cost, for the betterment of humanity is not "wrong," it is the height of altruism!

It takes a perverse sense of entitlement to believe that merely expressing an idea in a fixed medium grants you some sort of exclusive right to it, let alone that you should be able to enlist the violent force of the government to censor others from experiencing it for your personal benefit.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #93 on: September 06, 2016, 03:28:54 PM »
Wow, someone more extreme than me on copyright!  (IMO, copyright should be 15 years max, no extensions.)
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #94 on: September 06, 2016, 03:29:40 PM »
Yes artists have their work stolen and it is wrong.

No it isn't. Every artist has "stolen" from every other artist since the beginning of time -- that's what culture is: ideas building on each other. There is no such thing as a unique idea that can be "owned" (and a thing has to be owned to be stolen). Freeing an idea and distributing it far and wide, at zero cost, for the betterment of humanity is not "wrong," it is the height of altruism!

It takes a perverse sense of entitlement to believe that merely expressing an idea in a fixed medium grants you some sort of exclusive right to it, let alone that you should be able to enlist the violent force of the government to censor others from experiencing it for your personal benefit.

Jack:

The law says otherwise.  I'm not talking about fair use, but breaking copyright law and downloading a copyright protected album, movie, book or software without permission or payment is theft.

MW

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #95 on: September 06, 2016, 03:49:51 PM »
Yes artists have their work stolen and it is wrong.

No it isn't. Every artist has "stolen" from every other artist since the beginning of time -- that's what culture is: ideas building on each other. There is no such thing as a unique idea that can be "owned" (and a thing has to be owned to be stolen). Freeing an idea and distributing it far and wide, at zero cost, for the betterment of humanity is not "wrong," it is the height of altruism!

It takes a perverse sense of entitlement to believe that merely expressing an idea in a fixed medium grants you some sort of exclusive right to it, let alone that you should be able to enlist the violent force of the government to censor others from experiencing it for your personal benefit.

Jack:

The law says otherwise.  I'm not talking about fair use, but breaking copyright law and downloading a copyright protected album, movie, book or software without permission or payment is theft.

MW

If we're talking about what "the law says," then you are factually incorrect. "Theft" and "copyright infringement" have totally different legal definitions.

Watchmaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1609
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #96 on: September 06, 2016, 03:55:30 PM »
Yes artists have their work stolen and it is wrong.

No it isn't. Every artist has "stolen" from every other artist since the beginning of time -- that's what culture is: ideas building on each other. There is no such thing as a unique idea that can be "owned" (and a thing has to be owned to be stolen). Freeing an idea and distributing it far and wide, at zero cost, for the betterment of humanity is not "wrong," it is the height of altruism!

It takes a perverse sense of entitlement to believe that merely expressing an idea in a fixed medium grants you some sort of exclusive right to it, let alone that you should be able to enlist the violent force of the government to censor others from experiencing it for your personal benefit.

Jack, I'd be interested in hearing about your views on intellectual property further, but perhaps we should take it to another thread.  I think we have quite different perspectives.  But, admittedly, my experience and viewpoint come from mostly from working within the patent space (both as an inventor and as a..."get-around-er"), and I'm not as well informed on copyright.

You game?

Isn't that like most other careers with a high risk/reward?  Few kids become professional athletes, but many would like to.  I don't see an argument that we should support their dreams.  I'm telling my kids to find a career that supports them and live below their means so they can do something besides work.

Midwest- if we could support kid's dreams to be artists, or athletes, or anything else they want to be, at no real cost to society, why shouldn't we?  Why is it better to force some of them into careers of made up busy work? 

This isn't the time and place for me to try to prove that we have a surplus of productivity and, simply put, not enough necessary work to go around.  But if you grant me that, why not let kids chose to be athletes and artists?

Dancin'Dog

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1759
  • Location: Here & There
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #97 on: September 06, 2016, 03:57:14 PM »
Yes artists have their work stolen and it is wrong.

No it isn't. Every artist has "stolen" from every other artist since the beginning of time -- that's what culture is: ideas building on each other. There is no such thing as a unique idea that can be "owned" (and a thing has to be owned to be stolen). Freeing an idea and distributing it far and wide, at zero cost, for the betterment of humanity is not "wrong," it is the height of altruism!

It takes a perverse sense of entitlement to believe that merely expressing an idea in a fixed medium grants you some sort of exclusive right to it, let alone that you should be able to enlist the violent force of the government to censor others from experiencing it for your personal benefit.


If you had ever created anything worthy of a copyright you would feel differently.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #98 on: September 06, 2016, 03:59:07 PM »
Midwest- if we could support kid's dreams to be artists, or athletes, or anything else they want to be, at no real cost to society, why shouldn't we?  Why is it better to force some of them into careers of made up busy work? 

This isn't the time and place for me to try to prove that we have a surplus of productivity and, simply put, not enough necessary work to go around.  But if you grant me that, why not let kids chose to be athletes and artists?

I'd quit my software development job and become a musician in a heartbeat if I didn't have to worry about money.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?
« Reply #99 on: September 06, 2016, 04:06:12 PM »
If you had ever created anything worthy of a copyright you would feel differently.

That's a lie. Take your personal attack and shove it.

Yes artists have their work stolen and it is wrong.

No it isn't. Every artist has "stolen" from every other artist since the beginning of time -- that's what culture is: ideas building on each other. There is no such thing as a unique idea that can be "owned" (and a thing has to be owned to be stolen). Freeing an idea and distributing it far and wide, at zero cost, for the betterment of humanity is not "wrong," it is the height of altruism!

It takes a perverse sense of entitlement to believe that merely expressing an idea in a fixed medium grants you some sort of exclusive right to it, let alone that you should be able to enlist the violent force of the government to censor others from experiencing it for your personal benefit.

Jack, I'd be interested in hearing about your views on intellectual property further, but perhaps we should take it to another thread.  I think we have quite different perspectives.  But, admittedly, my experience and viewpoint come from mostly from working within the patent space (both as an inventor and as a..."get-around-er"), and I'm not as well informed on copyright.

You game?

Well, I would be, except that "intellectual property" is itself a biased and disingenuous term. Discussing patents, trademark, trade secrets and copyright would be fine though.