What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?

[EMP]

I don't necessarily believe anyone deserves anything, so I mis-spoke.

However I do believe in a more just and beautiful world. One where engineers and caretakers and artists have the ability to earn a living wage.

As far as the internet goes, it has lowered the barriers to entry. Great! Anyone can do it! Terrible! Beginners with no business sharing their work publicly are now devaluing the market. People with less talent and more friends/likes are diverting scarce resources from more talented artists.

I don't really know why people view careers in the arts as fun. It is exhausting, draining and not particularly fulfilling on a day to day basis.

[Midwest]

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.

Jack:

I'm not going to argue semantics with you.  Downloading copyrighted material is stealing.  I'll admit that I and many others have done it.  I don't do it now, because of the cost to society and the message it sends to my children.  To add - And obviously the fact I view it as wrong.

PS - I think DMCA and copyright laws are over reaching and need to be changed.  That is vastly different from eliminating them altogether.

[Midwest]

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?

Watchmaker - We let kids choose to be athletes and artists, but only the best get to make a living at it.  The best artists and athletes are valued by society.  Marginal artists and athletes (like myself), need to find another way to add value to society.  If you aren't exceptionally good at a job you love (art/athletics), you need to find another route that you involves some combination of barriers to entry (education), exceptionalism for the job offered, or less appealing to others. 

If you want to save such as MMM, then you can always start a second chapter in your life as an artist or athlete without burdening society with your choices.

If there is truly a surplus of productivity, why not put them to work cleaning up inner cities, caring for the elderly, and rebuilding infrastructure.  I'm not arguing for this, but those type of tasks were be more meaningful to society than having marginal artists and athletes creating art and playing sports.

[MrDelane]

This thread is hilariously misinformed.

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

Why not clear things things up by posting here where everyone could read it and hopefully learn?

[MoneyCat]

I have to admit that Etsy is a very effective way of making money through the arts. A friend of mine has a great side-hustle going of selling products on Etsy with unauthorized licensed characters. She made thousands of dollars that way last year. I suppose that doesn't really invalidate my argument, but that's definitely a profitable career in the arts.

Better to be the wolf than the sheep in her view.

[expatartist]

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

+1
Many friends are professional photographers whose income is significant from stock photo royalties. When doing design projects for work, I am meticulous about the source of the imagery, and only use my own photos, or those that have been appropriately licensed through Creative Commons.

I have to admit that Etsy is a very effective way of making money through the arts. A friend of mine has a great side-hustle going of selling products on Etsy with unauthorized licensed characters. She made thousands of dollars that way last year. I suppose that doesn't really invalidate my argument, but that's definitely a profitable career in the arts.

Easy doesn't make it right. And IMO it's parasitic: feeding off the creativity of others which are protected by trademarks and copyright.

A current work project is a poster design. Taking photos and turning them into an Art Deco style collage travel design. They want me to take stock photos from the internet "because they look better" than the CC ones which allow users to download and modify them, but they don't want to pay for them. Well yes, professional photographers who have great equipment, training and skills will generally produce better work than people willing to give it away for free. "But isn't that expensive?" they say. Yes, quality costs $. Not that much, actually. But quality photos that you can modify in the way my work wants to? A bit harder to find.

Stealing is free and easy. I don't steal. "But the other artists [who worked here before me] have done it." Those artists have never tried to make a living at their work, and apparently never thought about it. They just download whatever images they like and photoshop them. "But this doesn't look like the original photo any more, so it's not using their work." Unless I took the original photo, I don't own the imagery. This is true even for artists who use photography as a basis for their artwork: https://photographylife.com/when-hope-becomes-nope-copyright-infringement

This thread is hilariously misinformed.

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

Why not clear things things up by posting here where everyone could read it and hopefully learn?

It would be a useful perspective.

[libertarian4321]

MOD EDITS BELOW.  The personal attacks aren't necessary.

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.

I'm 53.  I made money in the Reagan years, the Bush I years, the Clinton years, the Bush II years, and the Obama years.  I'll make money regardless of which of the two idiots (Hillary or Trump) gets elected this time.

If you want to succeed, you will, regardless of the clown in the Whitehouse.  But if you are an emo whiner, who lays around moaning about how unfair life is, you won't succeed, regardless of who is in the White House or what the market does.

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.

Nonsense.  You sound like a whiny child.  Bush 2 was a piss poor President- so what?  He is not to blame FOR YOUR FAILURE TO PERFORM. 

News flash, kid.  The economy wasn't destroyed, the planet wasn't destroyed, the market wasn't destroyed.  Pull on your big boy pants, quit whining and blaming others, and do what you need to succeed.  Stop looking for people to blame for your failures.

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.

Taylor Swift and Beyonce and Jay Z sell what people want to buy.   So they succeed and "Filter" and hundreds of other no-name bands that play crap that no one wants to hear fail.

This did NOT start in 2005, kid, that has always been the case.

Stop blaming the internet or Google or the Flying Spaghetti Monster and PLAY SOMETHING PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR (duh?)!

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.

Good.  Sounds like no one wanted to buy their music, so it's best that they grow up now and get into another line of business.  There is nothing more pathetic than 35-year old guys living in their Mom's basement and pretending to be a "band."  Time to grow up and move on.

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.

I have no idea.  I have no "side hustles."  I pay my taxes, and I pay for my movies and music.

So put out something worth paying for, and I'll buy it.

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.

Trump sucks.  Hillary sucks.  Times change.  Whatever. 

You need to adapt.  Maybe you need to drop the artsy fartsy thing (music or whatever) and try something else.  You know, something that actually has value and that people are actually willing to pay for?

Why do I, as a middle aged guy, have to tell you this?  Us old folks are the ones who aren't supposed to be able to keep up, lol.

Suck it up and adapt, don't curl up into the fetal position and sob and feel sorry for yourself.

I assure you, that will never lead to success.

If it helps, you aren't the only one who can't make it in his "dream" field.  I wanted to be a porn star, but I just couldn't measure up to Ron Jeremy and John Holmes.  I tried weights, creams, pills, pumps, everything.  Nothing worked.  So I had to give up my dream and find a more practical career field.

I think maybe it's time you do the same.

[libertarian4321]

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.

You left out option 3) PRODUCE SOMETHING PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT TO BUY.

Again, just because YOU FAILED doesn't mean that the entire industry has failed.  There are still plenty of fabulously wealthy and successful artists.  You simply are not one of them...

[MoneyCat]

I'm disappointed in all the tough talk on this thread.
I think the OP was whining a bit, but just wanted a little empathy perhaps.

The fact that so many people have chimed in just proves that it is a topic that elicits a (emotional) response.
Everybody has dreams, it's up to you to find a way to achieve your dreams.
The biggest task is getting out of your own way.

I really think a lot of people feel threatened by my comments, because they are afraid it will turn off the magical faucet that gives them all that free stuff. Free stuff is incredibly addictive. We had a major Presidential nominee in this past election who had 45% of the votes during the nomination process SOLELY by campaigning on free stuff.

[ender]

I'm disappointed in all the tough talk on this thread.
I think the OP was whining a bit, but just wanted a little empathy perhaps.

The fact that so many people have chimed in just proves that it is a topic that elicits a (emotional) response.
Everybody has dreams, it's up to you to find a way to achieve your dreams.
The biggest task is getting out of your own way.

I really think a lot of people feel threatened by my comments, because they are afraid it will turn off the magical faucet that gives them all that free stuff. Free stuff is incredibly addictive. We had a major Presidential nominee in this past election who had 45% of the votes during the nomination process SOLELY by campaigning on free stuff.

The only reason I'm "threatened" by your comments is that you are clearly demonstrating it is possible to hold a belief and perspective without any ability or interest in defending it logically, instead repeating the same hyperbolic claims and ignoring everything people say which disagrees.

Icing on the cake is you lament Trump's popularity when it's basically the same thing.

[EMP]

I'm disappointed in all the tough talk on this thread.
I think the OP was whining a bit, but just wanted a little empathy perhaps.

The fact that so many people have chimed in just proves that it is a topic that elicits a (emotional) response.
Everybody has dreams, it's up to you to find a way to achieve your dreams.
The biggest task is getting out of your own way.

I really think a lot of people feel threatened by my comments, because they are afraid it will turn off the magical faucet that gives them all that free stuff. Free stuff is incredibly addictive. We had a major Presidential nominee in this past election who had 45% of the votes during the nomination process SOLELY by campaigning on free stuff.

The only reason I'm "threatened" by your comments is that you are clearly demonstrating it is possible to hold a belief and perspective without any ability or interest in defending it logically, instead repeating the same hyperbolic claims and ignoring everything people say which disagrees.

Icing on the cake is you lament Trump's popularity when it's basically the same thing.

Ummm... You have ignored or minimized all of the structural criticisms presented by people in the field. Essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, " Bootstraps!!!!!"

I doubt there is one true answer here, but I think OP is a lot closer than you.

[ender]

Ummm... You have ignored or minimized all of the structural criticisms presented by people in the field. Essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, " Bootstraps!!!!!"

I doubt there is one true answer here, but I think OP is a lot closer than you.

1) No one has made any argument that the arts ever were profitable careers
2) No one has offered any significant argument against the lower barrier to entry that the Internet allows anyone (or the additional market access)
3) No one has presented any evidence that piracy is destroying musicians (nor refuted evidence that "pirates" actually pay more)
4) No one has attempted to explain how many people on these boards are able to profit significantly from "the arts"
5) No one has explained how musicians pre-Internet were able to become popular without signing with a record label (which unless you make it big is not to your benefit)

[boarder42]

why dont we make the same post about how hard it is to be a professional athlete.  its a field with huge upside if you make it and huge downside to nothingness if you dont.  make something people value and people will use it.  to ask society to fund you being an artist is absurd.  maybe the artists who have made millions and billions should be funding the lower income people like this to keep the craft alive and well.  its supply and demand.  there is more supply than demand now and to stand out you have to be really good at both your craft and marketing it.  if there was a shortage of artists you'd be getting paid like STEM fields but you're not b/c everyone can do anything now and call it "art."   

[ender]

why dont we make the same post about how hard it is to be a professional athlete.  its a field with huge upside if you make it and huge downside to nothingness if you dont.  make something people value and people will use it.  to ask society to fund you being an artist is absurd.  maybe the artists who have made millions and billions should be funding the lower income people like this to keep the craft alive and well.  its supply and demand.  there is more supply than demand now and to stand out you have to be really good at both your craft and marketing it.  if there was a shortage of artists you'd be getting paid like STEM fields but you're not b/c everyone can do anything now and call it "art."   

+1

The problem that the Internet pushes to "the arts" is related to supply/demand. Supply goes way up because it is now easy to learn at a basic level as well as sell products how to do any arts field, compared to before. Youtube basically trains anyone at a basic level. But demand hasn't gone up accordingly.

If you want to solve that problem, you need to either increase demand or reduce supply. Period. So if the people here really want this, they need to regulate the heck of out the arts, so that of the aspiring musicians/artists out there who currently can do well enough to keep them in the field, the majority are pushed out of the field.

Otherwise, only the best of the best will be able to see the arts as a "profitable career." Whereas if demand is high and supply is low, even fairly poor artists can be successful - they don't have competition.

[Nick_Miller]

From the perspective of a "creator"...

I get frustrated with reviews from readers who read the free sample, seem to really enjoy it, and then say, "But I wish it was free! Can you make it free??? I promise to give you 5 stars if you do!"

I know better to get involved in internet arguments with people like this. The author just can't get into the trenches like that, so I let it go without comment. But I'd be lying if I wasn't thinking, "You want it fucking free? News flash - it would not exist in the first place unless I thought I could make a fair profit on my work. I wonder how many engineering firms or retail outlets would exist if they gave away services and products for free? I bet they'd have really happy customers though!! That's if you would refer to someone taking free stuff as a 'customer'."

Yes people can be cheap bastards and the explosion of free crap on the internet makes some people think that any sort of digital product = free!! Back when we relied on paperback novels and CDs for music, I don't think many people went into Barnes & Noble or whatever and said, "This stuff is all free, right?" So it seems like peeling away the physical part of the product ("the wrapping") is changing people's attitudes about the value of the actual product. But the product hasn't changed - so why should the perceived value change?

All this being said, there are many people who ARE willing to plop down $ on music, books, and the like. Most of my reviews are fair. I never claimed to be Neil Gaiman. This is my first work. And I've made money from honest people who plunk down a few bucks to (hopefully) enjoy the universe I've created and take their minds off their real life troubles for a few hours.

And I'll close with this. I've been moderately successful in life. Went to a top law school. Had some decent jobs. Have a great family. A good group of friends. And even with our lack of financial focus,my wife and I can still be FI in 10 years or less. BUT...creating a universe, a cast of characters, a plot, all the dialogue, action scenes, romance, etc, and weaving it all together, AND having people actually pay for it, and say "Please when are you releasing the sequel??? I need it NOW!" is perhaps the biggest "high" I've had in my life. It is humbling to recognize that people really enjoy the "ideas in your head" and that they value those ideas.

[Midwest]

From the perspective of a "creator"...

I get frustrated with reviews from readers who read the free sample, seem to really enjoy it, and then say, "But I wish it was free! Can you make it free??? I promise to give you 5 stars if you do!"

What is the name of your book?  If it looks interesting, I'll put my money where my mouth is and support an artist.  Many of us aren't looking for free content and aren't stealing, but only pay for stuff we like.

[boarder42]

but nick cant you see with your job as a lawyer and doing something you enjoy in your free time in writing this book that others are paying for is just saturating the market for the starving artists who only want to write and who's ideas arent as good as yours, have you considered giving all your money to them to help them learn to write as good as you do all while working a law job?

[Jack]

I'm not going to argue semantics with you.  Downloading copyrighted material is stealing.

What part of "YOU ARE FACTUALLY WRONG" do you not understand? Thinking copyright infringement is the same thing as stealing is exactly as inaccurate as thinking that "rape" is the same thing as "murder" -- they're simply completely different things.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. If you can't accept facts, then you have no business posting.

Incidentally: at this point, the laws against copyright infringement are so Draconian that actually breaking into somebody's house and stealing the original instead of making a copy would be punished less severely. Arguing that the two things are the same is therefore doubly idiotic if you care about obsessive enforcement of monopolies because you'd be arguing for lighter punishments!

Obviously the courts disagree with your views.  We have laws to protect creative works from cheaters who would profit by making cheap copies.  As I said, if you invested your time, energy, & money creating, designing, or inventing something worthy of a copyright or patent you would definitely want your work protected to the fullest extent of the law. 

LET ME MAKE THIS PERFECTLY CLEAR: I HAVE CREATED THINGS WORTHY OF COPYRIGHT AND STILL STAND BY WHAT I SAID ABOVE. YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH ME IF YOU WANT, BUT YOU WILL NOT CLAIM THAT MY OPINION IS SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT IT IS OR THAT I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE OR WHATEVER THE FUCK BRAIN-DEAD MISCONCEPTION IT IS THAT YOU HAVE! QUIT SPREADING SLANDEROUS LIES ABOUT ME.

[Fishindude]

The arts have never been an easy place to make a decent living and likely never will.
You either need to catch a few lucky breaks, be way more talented than your competitors, or work way harder and smarter than your competitors.

Hmmmmm ......... Sounds like the recipe for success in just about any field?

[Nick_Miller]

From the perspective of a "creator"...

I get frustrated with reviews from readers who read the free sample, seem to really enjoy it, and then say, "But I wish it was free! Can you make it free??? I promise to give you 5 stars if you do!"

What is the name of your book?  If it looks interesting, I'll put my money where my mouth is and support an artist.  Many of us aren't looking for free content and aren't stealing, but only pay for stuff we like.

That's very cool of you to inquire.

I'm still new here, and considering I'm posting pretty detailed personal financial info, I'm on the fence about revealing my book (and thus my identity). You'll be the first to know if I do though!

[ariapluscat]

This thread is hilariously misinformed.

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

Why not clear things things up by posting here where everyone could read it and hopefully learn?

There are a lot of things being discussed and conflated and i don't actually want to spend my time separating these topics out, esp since the thread is not... the nicest ... right now.
I'm with Vlad - the OP seemed to want to vent and complain, maybe get some useful advice. If OP is still interested in advice, i can share what i know about my niche or pm me. i'm not actually trying to clear up the misinformation bc, again, the thread isn't in the most welcoming of moods. i don't want to be berated...

I'd agree that tech has in some ways hurt my intended field, art conservation. a lot of lay people seem to think that documenting a work is the same as conserving it. think of the google scans of museums for 'tours' or the ability to 3d print artifacts. these are all useful tools and have really exciting possibilities, especially for accessibility. a few museums have used 3d printing to make touchable artwork for blind visitors and interactive exhibits for children. (neat!! and exciting!!!) museums are also seeing issues that potential visitors think that viewing the work digitally is as good as going to see the work in person. but none of these documentation methods are the same as actually conserving the artwork, keeping the object created by the artist in a stable condition. and different viewing methods have unique drawbacks; museums need feet to go thru the door for funding, generally, so it's bad that ppl are withdrawing to only one particular viewing method.

So yeah, tech and downloads and an unwillingness to pay for content is hurting the arts in my field and it's really frustrating.

For bringing these back as respectable fields, i don't really know.

I see the main problems as that there are some areas (eg curatorial) that are really well paid and respected at a certain level, but require years of unpaid work accessed via social connections and are therefore only available to the independently wealthy. plus these fields are falling out of the public eye. a lot of people don't understand the value that they provide. even museum professionals who do, at least with dwindling public funding, they're willing to cut corners or cater to the provisions of private donations. and there's no connection between the research funding these careers get and the stated needs of the field. idk how to get them in line since much of the funding is endowed w restrictions on the purpose. some professional groups are doing well and federal funding is supposed to meet this gap, but is limited.

the other less respected fields require several years of low paid work and/or education and aren't well known, like my own interest in conservation or current work in fundraising or past work in events and education. it's true that ppl do them as second careers or while having two jobs or some other form of extreme stress. these jobs are a little better bc you can get closer to being or working with practicing artists and outsider art. (i say better bc that's what i want; ymmv)

I would say that more funding for large museums - to tackle the big issues like research or educational outreach-  and a better framework for smaller museums - to take on young ppl with paid positions to create a stream of viable career paths. i also really like when practicing artists are able to get funding while being encouraged (required?) to work with children in education. but that's basically tying two sinking ships together to get them to float.

So to make professional careers we need paid opportunities for young people beginning their career and a more diverse ecosystem of available careers.
And for tech sector to be more responsible when they release things. they don't seem to have much respect for the theory and techniques that museum professionals have spent decades developing. maybe developing a code of ethics for them? or at least cluing them into the fact that should defer to museums' ethics?

Anyway please don't yell at me -  it's really sad when ppl who started out w me are dropping out of the field like flies, w a ton of stress and student debt. so i'm already sad and frustrated, you don't need to remind me that i'll never be beyonce.

also, please stop using jk rowling as an example of bootstraps. she lived for several years on welfare while raising her kid and writing. she is a vocal proponent of social safety nets. whether i agree with you or not, probably don't use her as an example since rowling has asked not to be used that way.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-rags-to-riches-story-of-jk-rowling-2015-5
http://www.businessinsider.com/jk-rowling-on-high-taxes-2012-9
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/772045337313894400

[Jack]

Furthermore, consider the example of Benjamin Franklin: he invented a bunch of stuff (the Franklin stove, bifocals, etc.) and intentionally chose not to patent any of it because he wanted others to be able to copy the ideas. Consider the example of Linus Torvalds, who created Linux and then gave it to the world for free: it is now one of the most widely-used pieces of software on the planet and Linus himself apparently has a net worth of $150 million -- despite, again, giving his software away for free. Consider Cory Doctorow, a successful science-fiction author (among other things) who licenses his works with Creative Commons licenses, allowing them to be distributed freely.

These examples are indisputable proof that people who think like me have a valid point of view.

[Midwest]

I'm not going to argue semantics with you.  Downloading copyrighted material is stealing.

What part of "YOU ARE FACTUALLY WRONG" do you not understand? Thinking copyright infringement is the same thing as stealing is exactly as inaccurate as thinking that "rape" is the same thing as "murder" -- they're simply completely different things

.

Jack - Other than the physical medium and who is harmed, what is the difference from stealing a blue ray/cd from walmart versus downloading the movie from pirate bay?  Rape and murder are 2 dissimilar acts with very different end results.  Downloading a movie/album has a very similar result to the end user as stealing the physical medium. 

Incidentally: at this point, the laws against copyright infringement are so Draconian that actually breaking into somebody's house and stealing the original instead of making a copy would be punished less severely. Arguing that the two things are the same is therefore doubly idiotic if you care about obsessive enforcement of monopolies because you'd be arguing for lighter punishments!

The laws against copyright infringement are overly severe at this point.  We agree. 

Assuming the artist has a copy of his/her work, stealing the original for your own use causes less harm to the artist than putting the original out for free for the world to use without the artists permission.  If I were an artist, I would much prefer you steal 1 copy of my album than put my album out for free for the world to use.

[Midwest]

From the perspective of a "creator"...

I get frustrated with reviews from readers who read the free sample, seem to really enjoy it, and then say, "But I wish it was free! Can you make it free??? I promise to give you 5 stars if you do!"

What is the name of your book?  If it looks interesting, I'll put my money where my mouth is and support an artist.  Many of us aren't looking for free content and aren't stealing, but only pay for stuff we like.

That's very cool of you to inquire.

I'm still new here, and considering I'm posting pretty detailed personal financial info, I'm on the fence about revealing my book (and thus my identity). You'll be the first to know if I do though!

Understand that and would probably do the same, but with all the railing about not supporting the arts I thought an actual offer of support was appropriate.  Good luck.

[Nick_Miller]

but nick cant you see with your job as a lawyer and doing something you enjoy in your free time in writing this book that others are paying for is just saturating the market for the starving artists who only want to write and who's ideas arent as good as yours, have you considered giving all your money to them to help them learn to write as good as you do all while working a law job?

I have not considered that! Let me ponder that for a moment...  -pondering-   ..... Nope, I think I'll keep the moneys!! I just got a check (yes I get paid by check) yesterday and it sure is helping us max out my wife's IRA, which we're on pace to do before year's end.

And I agree that "starving artists" need to consider a full range of options, including working the dreaded "day job' while pursuing creative projects on the side. Having a paycheck and not having to rely on your art to pay the mortgage gives you you time to breathe, less stress, and it lets you fine tune a project instead of rushing it to market "so you can pay your bills."

Other options include:

Marrying a high-earning person

Choosing not to have kids

Living in a LCOL area (if you're selling on Amazon, etsy, ebay, app stores, etc., you don't have to live in an "artsy" area)

Developing multiple income steams from your works. For a novelist, you can consider: 1) hardcover and paperbacks, 2) audio books, 3) selling foreign rights, 4) selling movie options, etc., 5) selling merchandise like mugs or t-shirts, etc.

[Midwest]

Furthermore, consider the example of Benjamin Franklin: he invented a bunch of stuff (the Franklin stove, bifocals, etc.) and intentionally chose not to patent any of it because he wanted others to be able to copy the ideas. Consider the example of Linus Torvalds, who created Linux and then gave it to the world for free: it is now one of the most widely-used pieces of software on the planet and Linus himself apparently has a net worth of $150 million -- despite, again, giving his software away for free. Consider Cory Doctorow, a successful science-fiction author (among other things) who licenses his works with Creative Commons licenses, allowing them to be distributed freely.

These examples are indisputable proof that people who think like me have a valid point of view.

All of those people admirably chose to give away their ideas.  Others choose not too.  When content is uploaded without their permission, the choice is taken away.

[StarBright]

I'd agree that tech has in some ways hurt my intended field, art conservation. a lot of lay people seem to think that documenting a work is the same as conserving it. think of the google scans of museums for 'tours' or the ability to 3d print artifacts. these are all useful tools and have really exciting possibilities, especially for accessibility. a few museums have used 3d printing to make touchable artwork for blind visitors and interactive exhibits for children. (neat!! and exciting!!!) museums are also seeing issues that potential visitors think that viewing the work digitally is as good as going to see the work in person. but none of these documentation methods are the same as actually conserving the artwork, keeping the object created by the artist in a stable condition. and different viewing methods have unique drawbacks; museums need feet to go thru the door for funding, generally, so it's bad that ppl are withdrawing to only one particular viewing method.

So yeah, tech and downloads and an unwillingness to pay for content is hurting the arts in my field and it's really frustrating.

Don't want to derail the thread but wanted to say that I think this is a really interesting comment.  I work for a company that actually does very high level 3D documentation work for artists and museums and we're always frustrated that people want us to use cheapo equipment to make our work cheaper (as with anything- quality costs money). The google scans and kinnec scans hurt us all apparently :) and by the way - I completely agree that documentation does not replace conservation (but can be an excellent tool).

Do you really think the low-end digital copies are what is hurting museum attendance though? I honestly don't know anyone (other than teachers who are no longer allowed to take kids on field trips) who are accessing digital art content.

/end thread derail (and apologies)

[Jack]

I'm not going to argue semantics with you.  Downloading copyrighted material is stealing.

What part of "YOU ARE FACTUALLY WRONG" do you not understand? Thinking copyright infringement is the same thing as stealing is exactly as inaccurate as thinking that "rape" is the same thing as "murder" -- they're simply completely different things

.

Jack - Other than the physical medium and who is harmed, what is the difference from stealing a blue ray/cd from walmart versus downloading the movie from pirate bay?  Rape and murder are 2 dissimilar acts with very different end results.  Downloading a movie/album has a very similar result to the end user as stealing the physical medium.

If you steal a DVD from Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart doesn't have it anymore. They have N-1 copies; you have 1; the net result is that N copies still exist. If you download a movie from the Pirate Bay, Wal-Mart still has all the copies it originally had. They still have N copies; you have 1; the net result is that N+1 copies exist. If nothing else, stealing and copyright infringement are different simply because N =/= N+1.

But wait, there's more!

A stolen DVD is directly and concretely a lost sale, whereas a torrent download is only "theoretically" a lost sale. In reality, it isn't even that because if the copyright infringement option were not available, the vast, vast majority of copyright-infringers would simply do without rather than resorting to either buying the thing or burgling Wal-Mart. Furthermore, there is evidence that Internet copyright infringement actually provides a net benefit to the copyright holders.

Also consider that, ignoring economics for a moment, increasing the availability of an idea by increasing the number of copies is fundamentally a good thing, not a bad thing.

So, what is the net result?

With stealing: the person stolen from is concretely, materially harmed and no value is created.

With copyright infringement: the copyright holder is theoretically harmed (but realistically the amount of harm is somewhere between small and negative) and copying creates value to society.

All of those people admirably chose to give away their ideas.  Others choose not too.  When content is uploaded without their permission, the choice is taken away.

That was a continuation of my response to GreenEggs, who apparently refuses to believe that such people could possibly exist. I wasn't trying to compare them to people whose only motivation for creating is profit and megalomaniacal control.

[Jack]

I'd agree that tech has in some ways hurt my intended field, art conservation. a lot of lay people seem to think that documenting a work is the same as conserving it. think of the google scans of museums for 'tours' or the ability to 3d print artifacts. these are all useful tools and have really exciting possibilities, especially for accessibility. a few museums have used 3d printing to make touchable artwork for blind visitors and interactive exhibits for children. (neat!! and exciting!!!) museums are also seeing issues that potential visitors think that viewing the work digitally is as good as going to see the work in person. but none of these documentation methods are the same as actually conserving the artwork, keeping the object created by the artist in a stable condition. and different viewing methods have unique drawbacks; museums need feet to go thru the door for funding, generally, so it's bad that ppl are withdrawing to only one particular viewing method.

So yeah, tech and downloads and an unwillingness to pay for content is hurting the arts in my field and it's really frustrating.

Don't want to derail the thread but wanted to say that I think this is a really interesting comment.  I work for a company that actually does very high level 3D documentation work for artists and museums and we're always frustrated that people want us to use cheapo equipment to make our work cheaper (as with anything- quality costs money). The google scans and kinnec scans hurt us all apparently :) and by the way - I completely agree that documentation does not replace conservation (but can be an excellent tool).

Do you really think the low-end digital copies are what is hurting museum attendance though? I honestly don't know anyone (other than teachers who are no longer allowed to take kids on field trips) who are accessing digital art content.

/end thread derail (and apologies)

[Insert philosophical discussion of Star Trek transporters/replicators and the Ship of Theseus here.]

[StarBright]

I'd agree that tech has in some ways hurt my intended field, art conservation. a lot of lay people seem to think that documenting a work is the same as conserving it. think of the google scans of museums for 'tours' or the ability to 3d print artifacts. these are all useful tools and have really exciting possibilities, especially for accessibility. a few museums have used 3d printing to make touchable artwork for blind visitors and interactive exhibits for children. (neat!! and exciting!!!) museums are also seeing issues that potential visitors think that viewing the work digitally is as good as going to see the work in person. but none of these documentation methods are the same as actually conserving the artwork, keeping the object created by the artist in a stable condition. and different viewing methods have unique drawbacks; museums need feet to go thru the door for funding, generally, so it's bad that ppl are withdrawing to only one particular viewing method.

So yeah, tech and downloads and an unwillingness to pay for content is hurting the arts in my field and it's really frustrating.

Don't want to derail the thread but wanted to say that I think this is a really interesting comment.  I work for a company that actually does very high level 3D documentation work for artists and museums and we're always frustrated that people want us to use cheapo equipment to make our work cheaper (as with anything- quality costs money). The google scans and kinnec scans hurt us all apparently :) and by the way - I completely agree that documentation does not replace conservation (but can be an excellent tool).

Do you really think the low-end digital copies are what is hurting museum attendance though? I honestly don't know anyone (other than teachers who are no longer allowed to take kids on field trips) who are accessing digital art content.

/end thread derail (and apologies)

[Insert philosophical discussion of Star Trek transporters/replicators and the Ship of Theseus here.]

Jack - this made me smile. At work last week the lead engineer and I were explaining Theseus' Paradox to my boss (essentially boss was saying 3D replication presents a totally "new" problem and we explained it was age old :)

[ariapluscat]

Don't want to derail the thread but wanted to say that I think this is a really interesting comment.  I work for a company that actually does very high level 3D documentation work for artists and museums and we're always frustrated that people want us to use cheapo equipment to make our work cheaper (as with anything- quality costs money). The google scans and kinnec scans hurt us all apparently :) and by the way - I completely agree that documentation does not replace conservation (but can be an excellent tool).

Do you really think the low-end digital copies are what is hurting museum attendance though? I honestly don't know anyone (other than teachers who are no longer allowed to take kids on field trips) who are accessing digital art content.

/end thread derail (and apologies)

that's such an awesome job! how did you get in to the field? is the pay decent w the tech sector?

what did you think of the 'hack' of the nefertiti bust at the neues?

in defense of your museum clients, it's probably not conservators that are pushing for the cheaper product and it's likely due to an overall lack of funding rather than a specifically-not-you lack of funding. but i'm sure it's still frustrating to see them cut corners and devalue your work, no matter the reason.

i do think so and i think that as 3d printers and vr gets more popular that it will be more of a problem. it could pose some neat solutions like making stored objects more easily accessed by the public, but the issue of getting bodies in the room is a persistent one. i think it's hard to point to these scans as a cause w good data bc the visit numbers have gone down so much in the past 10 yrs. i can also admit that i may be biased by the ppl i hung out w in college, techie kids who didn't 'get' the value of museum institutions and physical art esp if they could get a 'just as good' version from the comfort of a more familiar medium like their laptop.

[StarBright]

Don't want to derail the thread but wanted to say that I think this is a really interesting comment.  I work for a company that actually does very high level 3D documentation work for artists and museums and we're always frustrated that people want us to use cheapo equipment to make our work cheaper (as with anything- quality costs money). The google scans and kinnec scans hurt us all apparently :) and by the way - I completely agree that documentation does not replace conservation (but can be an excellent tool).

Do you really think the low-end digital copies are what is hurting museum attendance though? I honestly don't know anyone (other than teachers who are no longer allowed to take kids on field trips) who are accessing digital art content.

/end thread derail (and apologies)

that's such an awesome job! how did you get in to the field? is the pay decent w the tech sector?

what did you think of the 'hack' of the nefertiti bust at the neues?

There is absolutely no-way the nefertiti was done with a Kinect - that's for sure. I'm inclined to believe the data was stolen. Scanning can be quick but the high-level detail they got can't be done "guerrilla-style." You have set-up, scans, checking your point data, tear down, and that doesn't even take conditions into account (i believe the bust was in a glass display - reflection gives you really noisy data).

As to the job itself, I fell into it and I had a randomly diverse background that was a perfect fit for the company. I have a fine-arts background with a minor in archaeology and I had done IT internships in the summers. My company was looking specifically for someone who could handle customer care with artists that wasn't a dummy when it came to tech. Pay starts low (in the mid-30s for artists/designers, 40s-50s for engineers) but if you make it longer than a few years it bumps up pretty well.

About half our hires are art/design majors and half are engineers. It is a cool mix for a company.

[Warlord1986]

Y'all realize that MoneyCat is a troll, right? Dude was on another thread talking about how he was so kind to transgender people because he 'allowed them their delusions' and doesn't beat them up, or some shit like that. Now he's talking about how he was forced, forced!, to give up a writing career because of the internet. And minimum income should be guaranteed because everyone steals from artists. We see him trollin'.

He's more subtle than CactusPants, but not as funny.

[Watchmaker]

Watchmaker - We let kids choose to be athletes and artists, but only the best get to make a living at it.  The best artists and athletes are valued by society.  Marginal artists and athletes (like myself), need to find another way to add value to society.  If you aren't exceptionally good at a job you love (art/athletics), you need to find another route that you involves some combination of barriers to entry (education), exceptionalism for the job offered, or less appealing to others. 

Why should anyone be required to earn a living?  Why not let people choose how they want to add value to society, and provide a basic human right of subsistence?

We have the production capacity, the only reason it isn't obvious to everyone that we do is because we've invented work to make people look busy and new ways to consume.

[Midwest]

Watchmaker - We let kids choose to be athletes and artists, but only the best get to make a living at it.  The best artists and athletes are valued by society.  Marginal artists and athletes (like myself), need to find another way to add value to society.  If you aren't exceptionally good at a job you love (art/athletics), you need to find another route that you involves some combination of barriers to entry (education), exceptionalism for the job offered, or less appealing to others. 

Why should anyone be required to earn a living?  Why not let people choose how they want to add value to society, and provide a basic human right of subsistence?

We have the production capacity, the only reason it isn't obvious to everyone that we do is because we've invented work to make people look busy and new ways to consume.

Who will pick up the garbage, be a plumber, and provide food in your scenario?  If there is no incentive to work (or do unappealing work), few will choose to do it. 

[GuitarStv]

Watchmaker - We let kids choose to be athletes and artists, but only the best get to make a living at it.  The best artists and athletes are valued by society.  Marginal artists and athletes (like myself), need to find another way to add value to society.  If you aren't exceptionally good at a job you love (art/athletics), you need to find another route that you involves some combination of barriers to entry (education), exceptionalism for the job offered, or less appealing to others. 

Why should anyone be required to earn a living?  Why not let people choose how they want to add value to society, and provide a basic human right of subsistence?

We have the production capacity, the only reason it isn't obvious to everyone that we do is because we've invented work to make people look busy and new ways to consume.

Who will pick up the garbage, be a plumber, and provide food in your scenario?  If there is no incentive to work (or do unappealing work), few will choose to do it.

You can pay people more to do those jobs.  Subsistence != luxury.

[ariapluscat]

There is absolutely no-way the nefertiti was done with a Kinect - that's for sure. I'm inclined to believe the data was stolen. Scanning can be quick but the high-level detail they got can't be done "guerrilla-style." You have set-up, scans, checking your point data, tear down, and that doesn't even take conditions into account (i believe the bust was in a glass display - reflection gives you really noisy data).

As to the job itself, I fell into it and I had a randomly diverse background that was a perfect fit for the company. I have a fine-arts background with a minor in archaeology and I had done IT internships in the summers. My company was looking specifically for someone who could handle customer care with artists that wasn't a dummy when it came to tech. Pay starts low (in the mid-30s for artists/designers, 40s-50s for engineers) but if you make it longer than a few years it bumps up pretty well.

About half our hires are art/design majors and half are engineers. It is a cool mix for a company.

Right? and their video of the hack seemed super sketchy. i wouldn't mind if they were billing it as performance rather than being deceptive about their methods

I'm glad you found a field that works so well with your experience! that's what i'm hoping for. the tech and stem education and experience are so helpful in interviews and salary negotiations.
How did you like fine arts? What did you focus on? Most practicing artists I know support themselves with the assistance of teaching jobs and/or museum work. Did you do that?

Also high five for a fellow archaeology!

[Watchmaker]

Watchmaker - We let kids choose to be athletes and artists, but only the best get to make a living at it.  The best artists and athletes are valued by society.  Marginal artists and athletes (like myself), need to find another way to add value to society.  If you aren't exceptionally good at a job you love (art/athletics), you need to find another route that you involves some combination of barriers to entry (education), exceptionalism for the job offered, or less appealing to others. 

Why should anyone be required to earn a living?  Why not let people choose how they want to add value to society, and provide a basic human right of subsistence?

We have the production capacity, the only reason it isn't obvious to everyone that we do is because we've invented work to make people look busy and new ways to consume.

Who will pick up the garbage, be a plumber, and provide food in your scenario?  If there is no incentive to work (or do unappealing work), few will choose to do it.

You can pay people more to do those jobs.  Subsistence != luxury.

What GuitarStv said.  And market forces can take care of how much you need to pay to get people to do a job.

[Midwest]

Watchmaker - We let kids choose to be athletes and artists, but only the best get to make a living at it.  The best artists and athletes are valued by society.  Marginal artists and athletes (like myself), need to find another way to add value to society.  If you aren't exceptionally good at a job you love (art/athletics), you need to find another route that you involves some combination of barriers to entry (education), exceptionalism for the job offered, or less appealing to others. 

Why should anyone be required to earn a living?  Why not let people choose how they want to add value to society, and provide a basic human right of subsistence?

We have the production capacity, the only reason it isn't obvious to everyone that we do is because we've invented work to make people look busy and new ways to consume.

Who will pick up the garbage, be a plumber, and provide food in your scenario?  If there is no incentive to work (or do unappealing work), few will choose to do it.

You can pay people more to do those jobs.  Subsistence != luxury.

What GuitarStv said.  And market forces can take care of how much you need to pay to get people to do a job.

or society could choose to tell untalented artists and athletes to support themselves and do art/athletics on the side.  I vote for the latter.

[Jack]

Who will pick up the garbage, be a plumber, and provide food in your scenario?  If there is no incentive to work (or do unappealing work), few will choose to do it.

You can pay people more to do those jobs.  Subsistence != luxury.

What GuitarStv said.  And market forces can take care of how much you need to pay to get people to do a job.

Garbage pickup is this close -->| |<-- to being able to be automated anyway. They already make trucks that have hydraulic arms to dump the cans, and self-driving trucks are famously just around the proverbial corner...

Similarly, farming is mostly science, engineering and management these days: program the robotic combine, read the computer analysis of the satellite photo to estimate this year's crop yield, set the timers for the center pivot irrigation system, etc.

We'll still need plumbers for the foreseeable future, but that's a pretty high-paying trade already.

[Watchmaker]

or society could choose to tell untalented artists and athletes to support themselves and do art/athletics on the side.  I vote for the latter.

If the choice was between letting someone spend their life pursuing their passion, or forcing them to spend their life doing a task that could easily be automated, would you still answer the same?  Neither choice harms you.  Probably neither helps you either.  But the difference in quality of life for that person could be immeasurable.

Here we (mustachians) talk about hacking the system to buy our freedom from work as early as we can.  If we could set up the system so that we (everyone) started out free, why wouldn't we want that?

We need to get past the idea that work=worth.  That doesn't feel like a controversial position for this forum.

[EMP]

Who will pick up the garbage, be a plumber, and provide food in your scenario?  If there is no incentive to work (or do unappealing work), few will choose to do it.

You can pay people more to do those jobs.  Subsistence != luxury.

What GuitarStv said.  And market forces can take care of how much you need to pay to get people to do a job.

Garbage pickup is this close -->| |<-- to being able to be automated anyway. They already make trucks that have hydraulic arms to dump the cans, and self-driving trucks are famously just around the proverbial corner...

Similarly, farming is mostly science, engineering and management these days: program the robotic combine, read the computer analysis of the satellite photo to estimate this year's crop yield, set the timers for the center pivot irrigation system, etc.

We'll still need plumbers for the foreseeable future, but that's a pretty high-paying trade already.

LOL automate farming. Your ignorance is hilarious if you think that's all there is to farming. Like it's legitimately funny.

[boarder42]

or society could choose to tell untalented artists and athletes to support themselves and do art/athletics on the side.  I vote for the latter.

If the choice was between letting someone spend their life pursuing their passion, or forcing them to spend their life doing a task that could easily be automated, would you still answer the same?  Neither choice harms you.  Probably neither helps you either.  But the difference in quality of life for that person could be immeasurable.

Here we (mustachians) talk about hacking the system to buy our freedom from work as early as we can.  If we could set up the system so that we (everyone) started out free, why wouldn't we want that?

We need to get past the idea that work=worth.  That doesn't feel like a controversial position for this forum.

how would that even look.  i mean we're here in a forum of people hacking the system.  if i could get paid my bare minimum to do whatever i wanted i probably wouldnt be at this job.  i know i wouldnt be.  then where would all the engineering get done to keep up the electric grid in this country.  i'm just one person yeah.  but if everyone decided they'd rather play mens league softball than repair broken infrustructure where would that leave us.  the value you provide to society is compensated for in dollars.  which most people work for so in that sense your work = your value to society or your worth.  if i want to throw up on canvas all day and call it art and no one else can stand the smell of it and wants to buy it i should be compensated for this?  doesnt make sense.

[EMP]

or society could choose to tell untalented artists and athletes to support themselves and do art/athletics on the side.  I vote for the latter.

If the choice was between letting someone spend their life pursuing their passion, or forcing them to spend their life doing a task that could easily be automated, would you still answer the same?  Neither choice harms you.  Probably neither helps you either.  But the difference in quality of life for that person could be immeasurable.

Here we (mustachians) talk about hacking the system to buy our freedom from work as early as we can.  If we could set up the system so that we (everyone) started out free, why wouldn't we want that?

We need to get past the idea that work=worth.  That doesn't feel like a controversial position for this forum.

To be fair, most of the people getting rich on this board are getting rich because someone else is shouldering the burden of their externalized costs. Strawberry pickers, migrant farmers, third world slaves, women and minorities that earn less because of institutionalized sexism and racism, etc.  So yeah, people on this board might suffer a slight decrease in standard of living.

[Jack]

LOL automate farming. Your ignorance is hilarious if you think that's all there is to farming. Like it's legitimately funny.

Hey, there's a reason farmers are only 2.6% of the labor force (down from 90% in the 1700s). Sure, we've still got a bunch of migrant laborers doing menial shit jobs like picking strawberries, but that's just because they're currently cheaper (and not because automation isn't possible.)

Edit: and to follow up on your last post, that means the solution is to fix the laws so people can't be exploited that way, which would then cause the level of automation to increase. Then we can continue to pay them minimum wage, but without forcing them to do menial labor to get it.

[ender]

LOL automate farming. Your ignorance is hilarious if you think that's all there is to farming. Like it's legitimately funny.

With newer equipment, the operator can just sit in their combines/tractors and let the machine drive itself using GPS controls.

There are many aspects to farming which have technology to be completely automated, particularly those machine operation. This can be planting, spraying, or harvesting, or realistically anything involving machinery. Some crops are also better suited to automation, especially the ones which are already automatically picked via harvesters.

[Watchmaker]

how would that even look.  i mean we're here in a forum of people hacking the system.  if i could get paid my bare minimum to do whatever i wanted i probably wouldnt be at this job.  i know i wouldnt be.  then where would all the engineering get done to keep up the electric grid in this country.  i'm just one person yeah.  but if everyone decided they'd rather play mens league softball than repair broken infrustructure where would that leave us.  the value you provide to society is compensated for in dollars.  which most people work for so in that sense your work = your value to society or your worth.  if i want to throw up on canvas all day and call it art and no one else can stand the smell of it and wants to buy it i should be compensated for this?  doesnt make sense.

People would still be paid to do necessary work.  We would just stop making up work for people, and pay everyone a subsistence level income.

Some necessary jobs are unappealing, and the pay for those jobs would have to increase to entice people to do them.  Some necessary jobs are appealing to people, and average pay may actually decrease as more people are freed up to train for these jobs (like perhaps doctors, scientists, judges, etc).

[marty998]

Who will pick up the garbage, be a plumber, and provide food in your scenario?  If there is no incentive to work (or do unappealing work), few will choose to do it.

You can pay people more to do those jobs.  Subsistence != luxury.

What GuitarStv said.  And market forces can take care of how much you need to pay to get people to do a job.

Garbage pickup is this close -->| |<-- to being able to be automated anyway. They already make trucks that have hydraulic arms to dump the cans, and self-driving trucks are famously just around the proverbial corner...

Similarly, farming is mostly science, engineering and management these days: program the robotic combine, read the computer analysis of the satellite photo to estimate this year's crop yield, set the timers for the center pivot irrigation system, etc.

We'll still need plumbers for the foreseeable future, but that's a pretty high-paying trade already.

LOL automate farming. Your ignorance is hilarious if you think that's all there is to farming. Like it's legitimately funny.

Can you imagine robots heading chooks or droving cattle? The animals will know the difference. Incredibly unlikely that robots will replace a farmer and his/her working dogs.

[Jack]

Can you imagine robots heading chooks or droving cattle? The animals will know the difference. Incredibly unlikely that robots will replace a farmer and his/her working dogs.

Well... yes, actually. Was that a trick question?

[Travis]

Re: Jack's IP position

I just wanted to interject on this part of the conversation that while I think patents and intellectual property protections are needed in some regard, the manner in which we share information these days may be "market pricing" it out of existence at some point in the future.  A little over a century ago, patent law allowed you to put a barrier around an entire concept or idea which stifled innovation in new industries.  The car and the airplane come to mind up front.  These days your patent is more or less limited to a particular object that has to show some level of distinction.  I'm in the IT industry and software is facing similar legal/innovation hurdles where the debate consists of whether IP laws can/should apply to changes in code on a previous program that everyone is manipulating.

I spend a lot of time on Youtube where content providers (fancy term for internet artists) seem willing at increasing rates to share ideas, content, and otherwise pursue a "flatter" marketplace for their work.  Their main adversary at this point appears to be Youtube itself and the Disneys of the world (very much so Disney and CBS) who can afford armies of lawyers and contractors whose sole job is to file injunctions against perceived IP infractions of using their property on these Youtube channels despite it technically being legal under "fair use" guidelines.  Youtube being the medium this is all happening on doesn't appear to want to make a fight out of it and tends to side with whoever filed the injuction whether it has merit or not. 

I bring all that up because the internet and social media has allowed artists to explode in number in the last decade which others have already stated here numerous times.  It shows how a very broad field of artists can collaborate and further their work at a grassroots level that isn't as concerned with IP as the previous generation while still making a living and contributing to society.  Most are not trying to cheat the copyright system, but make innovative use out of an inexpensive medium (almost no barriers to getting yourself noticed on the internet) to further many forms of creativity that may make many copyright laws unnecessary or at least seem pointless.