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

[ender]

It's too bad there's no economic value to writing well anymore. Look how easily I've been able to make so many of you emotional for days on end now. It's really easy for me.

Ah, well.

Good thing it's a piece of cake to monetize my other skills.

You can come up with (more) excuses or you can start taking action.

Take your pick.

Post a new thread titled, "help me monetize my abilities in being a good writer" instead of whining "why can't I get free money for wanting to write." If you are too lazy to do this, too proud to ask for help, or otherwise don't want to learn or even try, then there shouldn't be economic value in writing. I have absolutely no interest in supporting the arts if that's what "the arts" means - unmotivated, lazy, fatalistic people who give up without even trying and somehow expect support in that lifestyle. There are plenty of people out there, even on this forum, who will gladly create and sell books and music instead of you.  Or, continue to hate the world, blame others and the system for a lack of success as a writer, and sit frustrated about how horribly stacked against you the system is.

Which you pick won't really bother me. I do confess I feel a tinge of pity seeing someone give up so definitively on what appears to be a life dream without even attempting to try, but alas, it's not my life. If you want to self-actualize failure without even trying, it is going to affect you and your life - not mine.

[EMP]

Or you could just go off on some well publicized racist or homophobic rant in the hopes of making your work more relevant. I hear it works well for some no talent hacks.

[MoneyCat]

Or you could just go off on some well publicized racist or homophobic rant in the hopes of making your work more relevant. I hear it works well for some no talent hacks.

If I was a no talent hack, I might try that, but unfortunately (as you can obviously tell) I am an expert at writing. I used to win all kinds of awards back in the days when writing was a profession. Now I just use my supreme talents to make people really mad by telling them things that are true that they don't like. People don't like it when you show them that they are doing some pretty horrible things like destroying entire sectors of the economy through blatant and outright thievery.

It's like "The Hunger Games" where the people living in the Capital get really angry when they are shown the truth about what their easy opulent lives are built on. It's so much easier for most people to simply lie to themselves about their "file sharing" (aka piracy or simply theft). There aren't enough honest people like me left in this world to keep the artists going without them resorting to their own nefarious means for survival.

I think artists will probably soon turn to tracking users and selling their personal data. That seems to be a popular way to make money these days.

[GuitarStv]

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.

My dad's a farmer.  He grows soy beans, corn, and barley.  A huge portion of his work (planting, spraying, harvesting) could easily be automated.  He occasionally pines over the GPS driven tractors but his operation isn't large enough to justify the costs.

[GuitarStv]

piracy or simply theft

I am by no means an advocate for piracy.  That said, by definition media piracy is not theft.

Theft is the action of taking someone else's property with the intent to deprive them of it.  When pirating music for example, you don't deprive the creator of the music . . . therefore it's not theft.  Instead, the pirate is creating a copy of something using their own resources.  It's similar to looking at a painting and then drawing it yourself, or retelling a joke that you heard someone else tell.  That doesn't mean that the action is trivial to the artist who is having their works infringed, but it's radically different than going into a store and grabbing a CD or breaking someone's bike lock and depriving them of their bike.

I'd caution you to stop equating the two.  It is a demonstration of ignorance that subsequently devalues your other arguments.

[Midwest]

piracy or simply theft

I am by no means an advocate for piracy.  That said, by definition media piracy is not theft.

Theft is the action of taking someone else's property with the intent to deprive them of it.  When pirating music for example, you don't deprive the creator of the music . . . therefore it's not theft.  Instead, the pirate is creating a copy of something using their own resources.  It's similar to looking at a painting and then drawing it yourself, or retelling a joke that you heard someone else tell.  That doesn't mean that the action is trivial to the artist who is having their works infringed, but it's radically different than going into a store and grabbing a CD or breaking someone's bike lock and depriving them of their bike.

I'd caution you to stop equating the two.  It is a demonstration of ignorance that subsequently devalues your other arguments.

Steve - Pirates aren't making the movie again or signing the song themselves, they are taking an exact copy of the intellectual property in question and making it available without permission and/or using it themselves.  That significantly different redrawing a painting or retelling a joke.

[GuitarStv]

piracy or simply theft

I am by no means an advocate for piracy.  That said, by definition media piracy is not theft.

Theft is the action of taking someone else's property with the intent to deprive them of it.  When pirating music for example, you don't deprive the creator of the music . . . therefore it's not theft.  Instead, the pirate is creating a copy of something using their own resources.  It's similar to looking at a painting and then drawing it yourself, or retelling a joke that you heard someone else tell.  That doesn't mean that the action is trivial to the artist who is having their works infringed, but it's radically different than going into a store and grabbing a CD or breaking someone's bike lock and depriving them of their bike.

I'd caution you to stop equating the two.  It is a demonstration of ignorance that subsequently devalues your other arguments.

Steve - Pirates aren't making the movie again or signing the song themselves, they are taking an exact copy of the intellectual property in question and making it available without permission and/or using it themselves.  That significantly different redrawing a painting or retelling a joke.

It seems pretty similar to retelling a joke from where I stand.  When you retell a joke you take an exact copy (unless you fuck it up) of the intellectual property (the joke) and make it available without permission to others and/or use it for yourself.

Regardless of how you feel about the similarity with piracy, it's still clearly different than theft.

[Midwest]

piracy or simply theft

I am by no means an advocate for piracy.  That said, by definition media piracy is not theft.

Theft is the action of taking someone else's property with the intent to deprive them of it.  When pirating music for example, you don't deprive the creator of the music . . . therefore it's not theft.  Instead, the pirate is creating a copy of something using their own resources.  It's similar to looking at a painting and then drawing it yourself, or retelling a joke that you heard someone else tell.  That doesn't mean that the action is trivial to the artist who is having their works infringed, but it's radically different than going into a store and grabbing a CD or breaking someone's bike lock and depriving them of their bike.

I'd caution you to stop equating the two.  It is a demonstration of ignorance that subsequently devalues your other arguments.

Steve - Pirates aren't making the movie again or signing the song themselves, they are taking an exact copy of the intellectual property in question and making it available without permission and/or using it themselves.  That significantly different redrawing a painting or retelling a joke.

It seems pretty similar to retelling a joke from where I stand.  When you retell a joke you take an exact copy (unless you fuck it up) of the intellectual property (the joke) and make it available without permission to others and/or use it for yourself.

Regardless of how you feel about the similarity with piracy, it's still clearly different than theft.

if I retell a joke, that's not piracy.  If I purchase a video of the comics act from amazon, remove the copy protection and upload to the world that's piracy.  That's substantially different from retelling a joke and a lot like theft.

[Dancin'Dog]

So, we're arguing that stealing an intangible object isn't "the same" as stealing a tangible object.

But, does that make it ok?  You are still "taking" something of value that was not intended by the owner to be given freely.  So, you received it freely secondhand from the original crook?  Does that make you innocent?

[Warlord1986]

I'm starting to get that weird feeling that we've all been trolled.

I mean..."Hunger Games" references?

C'mon man.

I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. MC is more subtle than most trolls, but he's now all but admitted to posting this to rile people up.

It's rather impressive actually.

[GuitarStv]

So, we're arguing that stealing an intangible object isn't "the same" as stealing a tangible object.

No theft takes place if you don't deprive the original owner of anything.  Copyright infringement is not theft or stealing.  I'm just arguing that you should use the correct words when describing a crime.

If you punch someone it's assault.  That's bad.  Calling it murder because murder sounds worse just makes you look foolish and leads to people discounting your view.  That's what people in this thread are doing when equating piracy and theft.

But, does that make it ok?  You are still "taking" something of value that was not intended by the owner to be given freely.  So, you received it freely secondhand from the original crook?  Does that make you innocent?

The person who is committing media piracy doesn't take anything.  They commit copyright infringement.  As I originally said though, copyright infringement and piracy isn't right or OK.  It's not something I advocate.  But let's not call it murder, that's silly.

[Jack]

So, we're arguing that stealing an intangible object isn't "the same" as stealing a tangible object.

But, does that make it ok?  You are still "taking" something of value that was not intended by the owner to be given freely.  So, you received it freely secondhand from the original crook?  Does that make you innocent?

No. I'm arguing that intangible objects cannot be stolen.

I'm also arguing that they cannot be "owned" and therefore what is "intended by the owner" is a nonsensical phrase to begin with.

There is no "owner," there is only the holder of an artificial temporary monopoly on distribution, issued by the government for the sole purpose "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8). If we the people decide that monopolies on idea distribution are no longer the best way to promote that progress, then we have no obligation whatsoever to recognize any such thing as copyright at all!

[ender]

For what it's worth, software uses licenses because of this exact problem.

Most people consuming software they purchase assume they own the software they purchase but in most cases they don't, but are instead licensing the use of the software.

[Jack]

For what it's worth, software uses licenses because of this exact problem.

Most people consuming software they purchase assume they own the software they purchase but in most cases they don't, but are instead licensing the use of the software.

On the contrary, EULAs are unenforceable bullshit. The only reason they exist in the first place is because of some dumbass lawyer's theory that transferring the software from the installation media to the hard drive and then to RAM constitutes making a copy and therefore triggers copyright law. (In other words, they argue that when you buy a copy, you have the right to use the program CD as a coaster, but not to actually install it and run it.) Not only is this simply asinine, and not only would it obviously be Fair Use, but §117(a)(1) of US copyright law explicitly permits it anyway!

Furthermore, EULAs simply not valid contracts. Every contract requires three basic elements: offer and acceptance, consideration, and mutual intent to be bound. EULAs are presented (in the usual case of software being bought at a store) after the sale is completed as 'contracts of adhesion'  meaning there is no "consideration" to the owner of the copy -- since he already owns it, the alleged-contract offers him no additional value! There is also no "acceptance" or "mutual intent to be bound" because the user is being held hostage by the "I agree" button: if he doesn't click it the software won't run. Therefore, clicking "I agree" is not a bona-fide act of agreement, but merely a mechanical act necessary for the owner of the copy to use his property.

Unless you're talking about some kind of business-to-business actual negotiated contract. "software as a service" deal or rental model (e.g. Office 365, Adobe Creative Cloud, etc.), chances are you actually own your copy of the software you buy.

[Trudie]

I actually think that technology has opened up markets for artists to distribute their work and to live wherever they please as independent artists.  There is a conventional argument that COL in places like New York, Boston, LA -- drives out artists because it is not possible to live there affordably.

I live in a really beautiful corner of the world that is a haven for artists, but it is out of the way.  People would call this "fly over" territory.  We have a photographer who has freelanced for several publications, including National Geographic; visual artists who maintain main street studios but still sell most of their art via internet and at national shows; writers who publish with major publishing houses (mostly academic) and writers who self-publish; and one semi-famous musician who chose to relocate here to be close to her childhood home and after recording on national labels is now independent (by choice) and travels the world performing.  I don't know the exact finances of any of these individuals, but based on the "externals" they seem to be doing all-right and to be living the lives they want.  We also have a number of other people who support themselves primarily through other means, but still work on their art.

So, my advice is -- "Find your own New York."

I think that from a policy perspective the one thing that would help everyone, including artists, is to have access to affordable health care.  The ACA was designed to address it, but the ship doesn't turn quickly.  I would like to see a public option.

[Sailor Sam]

I just found this thread, and I'm confused about the first premise. MoneyCat, you wanted to be a professional blog writer, but couldn't make enough revenue due to losses from piracy and add blocking? Did you personally have content pirated, or are you just talking about piracy in general?

[Jack]

I just found this thread, and I'm confused about the first premise. MoneyCat, you wanted to be a professional blog writer, but couldn't make enough revenue due to losses from piracy and add blocking? Did you personally have content pirated, or are you just talking about piracy in general?

Look how easily I've been able to make so many of you emotional for days on end now. It's really easy for me.

MoneyCat is a troll. Please ignore his shit and pay attention only to the substantive discussion posted by others, who have turned this into an interesting and worthwhile thread despite his pathetic attempts at asshattery.

[Sailor Sam]

Oh, I understand that Moneycat is a trollish asshat. I've seen his work on other threads. But the structure of the original post doesn't actually make any sense, if you follow the logic out. Poor performance from an award winning author.

As for intellectual property rights, it's not something I've ever given too much thought towards. Other than rolling my eyes in pain when paying the usurious prices for Microsoft Office Suite. My initial reaction is that copy-write does protect the creator's interests.  I admit I can't imagine how a system without copy-write would function. I've written some stuff in the fan fiction realm. I never intended to get paid and can't argue that part, but I also don't want someone else to pass my efforts off as theirs. I imagine most people who create stuff similarly(?). Would plagiarism be something forbidden under a copy-write free world?

[Jack]

As for intellectual property rights, it's not something I've ever given too much thought towards.

Unfortunately, it's not something most people have given very much thought towards, which is one reason why the copyright cartels are so easily able to push through new and ever-more-draconian laws.

Other than rolling my eyes in pain when paying the usurious prices for Microsoft Office Suite.

https://www.libreoffice.org/

I admit I can't imagine how a system without copy-write would function. I've written some stuff in the fan fiction realm. I never intended to get paid and can't argue that part, but I also don't want someone else to pass my efforts off as theirs. I imagine most people who create stuff similarly(?). Would plagiarism be something forbidden under a copy-write free world?

Yes, plagiarism is forbidden even with respect to works in the Public Domain. Shakespeare, for example, is no longer copyrighted, but that doesn't mean it's okay for you to go around claiming that you wrote Romeo and Juliet.

If you want to see how "the system would function," take a look at the Free software movement and Creative Commons. You might be surprised to find out just how much of the software and other media you use every day relies on copyright law only defensively (and would continue to exist just fine if it were greatly reduced in scope or abolished). Not only are both the things that I just linked to (LibreOffice and Wikipedia) examples of that, but so is the software running the MMM forums itself that we're using to communicate and the web serer software it's running on, as well as the web browser you're using to view this page (if it's anything other than IE or Edge) and the networking stack you used to connect to the Internet in the first place. (Even Windows' networking stack is built on Freely licensed code.)

[Sailor Sam]

Interesting, thanks Jack.

[ketchup]

Since this thread has taken a detour into copyright and copyright infringement, as someone who previously was *very* into internet piracy and associated communities circa 2005~2012:

People who pirate content tend to fit into one of three personas: someone that would never pay any money for any content in the first place, someone who *can't* pay for content (college students with no money mostly), or someone who is willing to pay for the content, but the content provider won't let them, or not in the form they want.  I was a mix of groups two and three.

The first group is essentially zero lost sales.  If they can't get their free whatever-it-is, they'll go without, or find something else.

The second group is also pretty close to zero lost sales as they are priced out.  However, many of them will likely turn into paying customers if their life situation changes.  And their exposure to the media potentially primes them for that future consumption.  If Bob Freshman pirates the AC/DC discography at 19, he might go spend $200 on a concert ticket at 25.

The third group is some form lost sales, but with movement of the industry, they can recover some of that. 

Let's pretend it's 2008 and I want to watch an HD movie on my new fancy TV with my buddies.  To do this, I can either: 1) pay $100/mo for cable and catch it on TV, probably cut for time/content and with added commercials, 2) drive to the store and spend $30 on a Blu-ray Disc and put it in my $400 Blu-ray player and sit through 10 minutes of unskippable ads before the menu comes up, or 3) Download it on BitTorrent in 10 minutes while I microwave some popcorn and hook my laptop up to the TV.  Guess which option is most appealing to a tech-savvy twenty-something?

Let's pretend it's 2011 and I live in Australia and want to see what all the Game of Thrones fuss you're reading online is about.  You literally can't, unless you pirate it in some way.

That third group is really the only one that the industry can react to in a way that will actually benefit them.  And it has.  Now if I want to watch an HD movie, I could see if a streaming service I subscribe to has it, or "rent" it from something like Amazon for $5 and start watching instantly (don't even need to kill time popping the popcorn).  HBO has made Game of Thrones available worldwide simultaneously now, without restricting availability like they did before.  Everyone I know that used to pirate music casually now either buys DRM-free songs or subscribes to a streaming service like Spotify.  HBO Now recovers money from millions of people that would otherwise pirate Game of Thrones.  Netflix streaming is ubiquitous.  Showtime and Starz are now available as streamlining add-ons to Amazon Prime.

And it's a lot easier for a small artist to react to things like this compared to the industry as a whole.  I know indie filmmakers that were selling or giving away digital downloads of their content (on their own, not a service like Amazon Video) in 2008.

Really, as a small-scale content producer, piracy shouldn't be a concern of yours unless somehow your content is difficult to access/purchase.  And as a small-scale producer, you have the power to change that.  Even if people do still pirate at that point, they're all in groups one and two, and you're not losing any sales.

[ptobest]

I actually think that technology has opened up markets for artists to distribute their work and to live wherever they please as independent artists.  There is a conventional argument that COL in places like New York, Boston, LA -- drives out artists because it is not possible to live there affordably.

I live in a really beautiful corner of the world that is a haven for artists, but it is out of the way.  People would call this "fly over" territory.  We have a photographer who has freelanced for several publications, including National Geographic; visual artists who maintain main street studios but still sell most of their art via internet and at national shows; writers who publish with major publishing houses (mostly academic) and writers who self-publish; and one semi-famous musician who chose to relocate here to be close to her childhood home and after recording on national labels is now independent (by choice) and travels the world performing.  I don't know the exact finances of any of these individuals, but based on the "externals" they seem to be doing all-right and to be living the lives they want.  We also have a number of other people who support themselves primarily through other means, but still work on their art.

So, my advice is -- "Find your own New York."

I think that from a policy perspective the one thing that would help everyone, including artists, is to have access to affordable health care.  The ACA was designed to address it, but the ship doesn't turn quickly.  I would like to see a public option.

Totally agreed on this - the Internet is helping do away with the idea that you have to live in a certain place to become successful as an artist (depending on the art type - acting may still require being close to production studios). Relatedly: I'm interested in seeing what sort of art will come out of Detroit in the next 10 years, as I hear it's turning into an artist haven.

I also think any policies that focus on small businesses (both making it easy for small businesses to flourish as well as encouraging patronage of small businesses) help the arts. You can go to Target and buy a coffee mug - produced by one designer, with 2343425 other copies of it being purchased and most of the profits going to Target, or you can go to a small business down the street or online, and buy a coffee mug where most of the profits go to the creator, and where many creators have a change to sell their products. Of course, consumers need to find value in purchasing custom items, often at a higher price, than mass-produced items. Which means consumers need to have the extra spending money to allow them to do this. That being said, consumers already seem to have the extra spending money to spend on fancy phones, etc, so maybe it's more of a mindset change to encourage consumers to purchase unique products over generic products.

[boarder42]

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).

how do you determine who gets to do this "necessary work" in a society built around excess almost everyone will want to make more to have more and not just subsist.  to me this would tend back towards a cast style system of the middle ages or like india.

and what work are we making up for people to do exactly.  every business i know is in it to make money for its shareholders if it can eliminate fluff and increase profit by eliminating jobs it does.

[Midwest]

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).

how do you determine who gets to do this "necessary work" in a society built around excess almost everyone will want to make more to have more and not just subsist.  to me this would tend back towards a cast style system of the middle ages or like india.

and what work are we making up for people to do exactly.  every business i know is in it to make money for its shareholders if it can eliminate fluff and increase profit by eliminating jobs it does.

Who defines what work is necessary and/or what do you define as uneccessary work?

[Jack]

Aren't you depriving the original owner of money?

No, you're not. A sale that was never more than theoretical does not provide money, and what "owner" are you talking about anyway?

I thought stealing was taking something that belongs to someone else without paying for it.

Yes, that's what "stealing" is, but WTF does that have to do with this discussion? (Answer: nothing.)

Ideas "belong" to the Public Domain. Copyright holders are only borrowing them.

I used to work in the Marketing Dept at Universal Music....

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

[GuitarStv]

No theft takes place if you don't deprive the original owner of anything.

Aren't you depriving the original owner of money?

This is a complicated question, and the reason that theft is different than copyright infringement.  If I steal a CD, I am depriving the store of something that they would have been able to sell.  There is an actual quantifiable loss.

If I download a song instead of buying it, there is still actual quantifiable loss.  If I download a song that I wouldn't have purchased, there is no loss.  There is quite a bit of research that shows that a large amount of copyright infringement exists in this final category.

That's why you can't equate it to theft any more than you can equate assault to murder.  They are different.

Copyright infringement is not theft or stealing.  I'm just arguing that you should use the correct words when describing a crime.

I thought stealing was taking something that belongs to someone else without paying for it.

Yes, that's what stealing is.  But you don't take anything that belongs to someone else when you commit copyright infringement.  You aren't depriving anyone else of anything, you're making a copy of something using your own materials.

The person who is committing media piracy doesn't take anything.  They commit copyright infringement.  As I originally said though, copyright infringement and piracy isn't right or OK.  It's not something I advocate.  But let's not call it murder, that's silly.

I used to work in the Marketing Dept at Universal Music. I saw the big 5 consolidate into the big 3 and I witnessed a lot of indie record labels close their doors during my time in the music business. Towards the end, it got to the point where Universal was letting salaried people go and replacing them with unpaid interns.
Stealing/pirating deprives content creators of income.

Stealing does deprive people of income.  In some instances, pirating can deprive people of income.  That is absolutely true.  I don't believe either activities are great things to do.  Assault hurts people and is bad.  Murder hurts people and is bad.  They aren't the same thing though, and it makes you sound silly if you pretend that they are.

[Watchmaker]

how do you determine who gets to do this "necessary work" in a society built around excess almost everyone will want to make more to have more and not just subsist.  to me this would tend back towards a cast style system of the middle ages or like india.

If lots of people want to do a job, there will be more competition and the average wage for that job will be lower than the average wage for a job fewer people are interested in.  Again, market forces handle all of this.

When productivity is no longer the scarce resource, and interest-in-working is, then salaries will have to be priced differently.  More pay for the less enjoyable/rewarding jobs. 

I think it's likely that what many people would choose to do would be to work, but work less.  The 40 hour work week is a completely arbitrary number anyway; who is to say we can't settle in on a 10 hour work week?  Or 5.  Or 4. ;)

and what work are we making up for people to do exactly.  every business i know is in it to make money for its shareholders if it can eliminate fluff and increase profit by eliminating jobs it does.

Well, at least half of all workers at fast food restaurants (so that's 1.75 million in the US) for a start.  But it's not just the jobs that could be replaced with an app.  It's also the office workers whose actual working hours are only a fraction of the time they are "at work".  I could do my job in 4 hours a day, but they want me here (and pay me for) 8.  It's a poor use of their money and my time.  But there's an even bigger cause of unnecessary work that dwarfs either of those: our consumerist culture--which foments desire for things (new clothes, new cars, tons of meals out, etc), creating in turn a demand for more production.  Production that isn't necessary, and isn't improving our quality of life.

I don't mean to suggest every single detail is worked out and that I have all the answers, by the way.  I know I don't.  It's something we'll have to confront eventually though.

[boarder42]

all great ideas but would take a fundamental change in how people view things.  yeah at my job i am here 40 hours get paid for 40 hours but probably work less - pay for production is a better model but people cant seem to understand what the value of some end product actually is in the coporate world.  you do xyz you get paid ### seems simple.  would likely motivate me to work a full 40 hours taking on the actual jobs and making more but they cant figure that out and it wouldn't be "fair" to let smarter people work less etc. just like every kid has to get a trophy now.  i can see useless jobs be increased in the name of "work" sooner than them being eliminated for a base rate of pay for being alive.

[ender]

The biggest problem is that when you force society to be less consumeristic, why the heck would I ever work a high stress challenging job when there's literally no benefit to me anymore?

If the end goal is the same standard of living for everyone, regardless of job, someone else can be a software developer working on programs used by thousands of people. I don't need that stress. I'll just work a nice park-job and program for fun on my own..

[Jack]

Stealing does deprive people of income.  In some instances, pirating can deprive people of income.

No, piracy does that in all cases and is definitely bad. It's copyright infringement that's ambiguous.

Piracy and stealing are much more similar to each other (despite the fact that piracy is covered under maritime law instead of normal criminal law) than either is to copyright infringement.

(It might seem like I'm making a big deal about terminology, but words have meanings -- and using words like "stealing" and "piracy" in a discussion about copyright is exactly as unhelpful and offensive as using racial slurs in a discussion about race relations.)

[Travis]

I used to work in the Marketing Dept at Universal Music. I saw the big 5 consolidate into the big 3 and I witnessed a lot of indie record labels close their doors during my time in the music business. Towards the end, it got to the point where Universal was letting salaried people go and replacing them with unpaid interns.
Stealing/pirating deprives content creators of income.

Would this happen to be at the same time internet businesses were shutting down brick and mortar record stores/video rentals/books stores/anything the internet can simply do cheaper?

[Watchmaker]

why the heck would I ever work a high stress challenging job when there's literally no benefit to me anymore?

If the end goal is the same standard of living for everyone, regardless of job

I haven't said anything like that, and that is not the end goal.

someone else can be a software developer working on programs used by thousands of people. I don't need that stress. I'll just work a nice park-job and program for fun on my own..

Great, so what's the problem then?  Someone else will do it.  Or, if no one else wants to do it at your current salary, they'll raise the salary.  Or, if it's not worth it to the company at that higher salary, no one will do it. 

[Watchmaker]

all great ideas but would take a fundamental change in how people view things.  yeah at my job i am here 40 hours get paid for 40 hours but probably work less - pay for production is a better model but people cant seem to understand what the value of some end product actually is in the coporate world.  you do xyz you get paid ### seems simple.  would likely motivate me to work a full 40 hours taking on the actual jobs and making more but they cant figure that out and it wouldn't be "fair" to let smarter people work less etc. just like every kid has to get a trophy now.  i can see useless jobs be increased in the name of "work" sooner than them being eliminated for a base rate of pay for being alive.

Well, I agree it's a big change.  And I think you're right that what we'll probably keep adding fake work so everyone can have "full employment".  It'll work, it's just not as good as everyone having more free time (and, depending on how we do it, probably worse for the environment).

[Roland of Gilead]

I think it would take better copyright laws and harsh enforcement.   Right now everyone grabs whatever they want from the interweb and maybe 1% actually pay for it.

Do we want these better copyright laws?  Probably not.

[boarder42]

I think it would take better copyright laws and harsh enforcement.   Right now everyone grabs whatever they want from the interweb and maybe 1% actually pay for it.

Do we want these better copyright laws?  Probably not.

i think you number is incorrect.  people around here maybe 1% are paying for it.  but society as a whole. 99% of people are buying shit they dont need. like songs.  when there are free radio stations and youtube where you can create your own playlist.

[arebelspy]

I'm starting to get that weird feeling that we've all been trolled.

I mean..."Hunger Games" references?

C'mon man.

I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. MC is more subtle than most trolls, but he's now all but admitted to posting this to rile people up.

It's rather impressive actually.

So report it to the mods with the handy button that's on every post.  We can't read every post in every thread.  While we're on the subject, any other trolls I should be aware of that you've noticed?  :)

[SwordGuy]

Aren't you depriving the original owner of money?

No, you're not. A sale that was never more than theoretical does not provide money, and what "owner" are you talking about anyway?

I thought stealing was taking something that belongs to someone else without paying for it.

Yes, that's what "stealing" is, but WTF does that have to do with this discussion? (Answer: nothing.)

Ideas "belong" to the Public Domain. Copyright holders are only borrowing them.

You are correct.  Ideas belong to the public domain.  But once an idea is instantiated as a specific arrangement of words, music and/or graphics, it's no longer an "idea".

It is a product.

Products are owned by their creator or the person who hired the creator, depending upon their business arrangement.

The owners may choose to give that product to the public domain, but that is their choice to do so or not.

So, copying someone's art is still theft.

It's hard to get someone to realize they are stealing when they want something they don't want to pay for.

[SwordGuy]

Or you could just go off on some well publicized racist or homophobic rant in the hopes of making your work more relevant. I hear it works well for some no talent hacks.

If I was a no talent hack, I might try that, but unfortunately (as you can obviously tell) I am an expert at writing. I used to win all kinds of awards back in the days when writing was a profession. Now I just use my supreme talents to make people really mad by telling them things that are true that they don't like.

You have obviously missed your niche in the word art market.

You need to start writing for conservative, white guy talk radio.  They apparently like being made mad all day long by a constant spew of poison in their ears.  (I had to sit next to some of them for a year and a half, that's how I know.)

You would be a shoe in for some of Trump's speech writing, but he's been proven to stiff his contractors, so get paid in advance.

:)

[Jack]

You are correct.  Ideas belong to the public domain.  But once an idea is instantiated as a specific arrangement of words, music and/or graphics, it's no longer an "idea".

It is a product.

Products are owned by their creator or the person who hired the creator, depending upon their business arrangement.

The owners may choose to give that product to the public domain, but that is their choice to do so or not.

The "product" is a temporary monopoly on distribution granted by the government. It is the government's choice, not the artist's (or the artist's employer's), whether or not to grant that monopoly in the first place. If that monopoly is not granted, or when the monopoly expires, there is no "product" to be "owned" and even the instantiated idea is in the Public Domain by default.

Remember, copyright in the United States was only originally intended to last 14 years (renewable once for another 14 years). The current "effectively perpetual copyright" regime is a perversion of the law that even fails to achieve the stated purpose for copyright (economically speaking, the optimum length is 15 years). The copyright cartels (and the legislators they've bribed) have stolen the Public Domain -- no new works have entered it in decades, and every time one comes close they lobby for another extension -- so it's clear they have violated the social contract expressed in the Constitution (whether the courts recognize it or not). Because of that violation, there is no ethical problem with fighting back by any means necessary.

[Warlord1986]

I'm starting to get that weird feeling that we've all been trolled.

I mean..."Hunger Games" references?

C'mon man.

I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. MC is more subtle than most trolls, but he's now all but admitted to posting this to rile people up.

It's rather impressive actually.

So report it to the mods with the handy button that's on every post.  We can't read every post in every thread.  While we're on the subject, any other trolls I should be aware of that you've noticed?  :)

Are you telling me you're not omnipotent? My world is falling apart. Everything is a lie.

The only other troll I've seen here is CactusPants, and that guy at least made me laugh.

[arebelspy]

You are correct.  Ideas belong to the public domain.  But once an idea is instantiated as a specific arrangement of words, music and/or graphics, it's no longer an "idea".

It is a product.

Products are owned by their creator or the person who hired the creator, depending upon their business arrangement.

The owners may choose to give that product to the public domain, but that is their choice to do so or not.

The "product" is a temporary monopoly on distribution granted by the government. It is the government's choice, not the artist's (or the artist's employer's), whether or not to grant that monopoly in the first place. If that monopoly is not granted, or when the monopoly expires, there is no "product" to be "owned" and even the instantiated idea is in the Public Domain by default.

Remember, copyright in the United States was only originally intended to last 14 years (renewable once for another 14 years). The current "effectively perpetual copyright" regime is a perversion of the law that even fails to achieve the stated purpose for copyright (economically speaking, the optimum length is 15 years). The copyright cartels (and the legislators they've bribed) have stolen the Public Domain -- no new works have entered it in decades, and every time one comes close they lobby for another extension -- so it's clear they have violated the social contract expressed in the Constitution (whether the courts recognize it or not). Because of that violation, there is no ethical problem with fighting back by any means necessary.

That's great except that nothing you ranted about is actually true.
Copyright duration for works created on or after 1978 is the life of the author plus an additional seventy years.

Troll much?

What did he say that was not true?

The one fact you stated was copyright is life of the author + 70 years.   I'd say that's fairly synonymous with his characterization of "effectively perpetual copyright."

When we're talking a century+ for many things, and the fact that it keeps getting extended (* you, Disney--every time Mickey Mouse is up for becoming public domain, lobbyists get the copyright extended.  Again.  And again.) basically means we've entered a state of perpetual copyright.  I don't think that's a mischaracterization of life + 70 years (when you account for the fact it was much less, and keeps getting pushed up, over and over, to that current state).  What else did you disagree with?

Calling him names doesn't help, I'm more interested in an argument you can put forth.  :)

[Metric Mouse]

Or you could just go off on some well publicized racist or homophobic rant in the hopes of making your work more relevant. I hear it works well for some no talent hacks.

If I was a no talent hack, I might try that, but unfortunately (as you can obviously tell) I am an expert at writing. I used to win all kinds of awards back in the days when writing was a profession. Now I just use my supreme talents to make people really mad by telling them things that are true that they don't like.

You have obviously missed your niche in the word art market.

You need to start writing for conservative, white guy talk radio.  They apparently like being made mad all day long by a constant spew of poison in their ears.  (I had to sit next to some of them for a year and a half, that's how I know.)

You would be a shoe in for some of Trump's speech writing, but he's been proven to stiff his contractors, so get paid in advance.

:)

+1. EMP

Who wants awards for writing? I thought this thread was about how to make cash - start pumping out Twilight level books and you'll be rich!

[MrDelane]

To those debating copyright in this thread - I'm curious to understand your position.

What is the harm that you see that comes from copyright?
And what is the benefit from allowing ideas to enter the public domain?

Or is it not a case of harm or benefit and more a case of what you deem is 'right'?
(meaning, regardless of harm or benefit you view ideas as belonging to the public domain).

I think perhaps I've lived in the world of intellectual property for too long and am simply not seeing your point of view.  I would like to try to understand it.

[GuitarStv]

To those debating copyright in this thread - I'm curious to understand your position.

What is the harm that you see that comes from copyright?
And what is the benefit from allowing ideas to enter the public domain?

Or is it not a case of harm or benefit and more a case of what you deem is 'right'?
(meaning, regardless of harm or benefit you view ideas as belonging to the public domain).

I think perhaps I've lived in the world of intellectual property for too long and am simply not seeing your point of view.  I would like to try to understand it.

What is the purpose of copyright?

At it's soul, copyright exists to benefit everyone.

If each artists or designer who came up with a good idea was ripped off the next day, then it would reduce the diversity of ideas available by removing incentive.  (I think everyone's pretty clear on this point.)  By the same token, preventing an idea from being freely used/distributed long after the original artist has profited from it reduces the diversity of ideas available artificially.  (Imagine the cultural impact if Santa Clause was copyrighted and couldn't be reproduced by anyone . . . or Jesus.  It would be damaging to culture.)

At the moment many believe that we are heavily slanted towards too many rights for content creators.  Does extending a copyright seventy years after the death of an artist really encourage more creativity?

[ender]

Just going to leave this here - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130513/12113523062/monsanto-wins-case-seed-patents-planting-your-own-legally-purchased-grown-seeds-can-be-infringing.shtml

[Jack]

To those debating copyright in this thread - I'm curious to understand your position.

What is the harm that you see that comes from copyright?
And what is the benefit from allowing ideas to enter the public domain?

Copyright, literally speaking, is a monopoly combined with censorship. If you can understand the harm that comes from monopolies and the harm that comes from censorship, then you also understand [Edit: some, but not all of] the harm that comes from copyright.

In theory, the incentive of copyright causes additional works to be created with enough value to more than compensate for that harm (i.e., causing a net benefit). In practice, the Internet has proven that people will create nearly infinitely whether they financially benefit or not.

If each artists or designer who came up with a good idea was ripped off the next day, then it would reduce the diversity of ideas available by removing incentive.  (I think everyone's pretty clear on this point.) By the same token, preventing an idea from being freely used/distributed long after the original artist has profited from it reduces the diversity of ideas available artificially.

Regarding your first sentence: I am clear that it is the rationale for copyright, but I vehemently disagree that it is actually true. The third sentence I agree with, minus the unnecessary "long after profit" part.

[Mmm_Donuts]

What is the harm that you see that comes from copyright?
And what is the benefit from allowing ideas to enter the public domain?

There just isn’t such a thing as ‘‘copyright policy’’ anymore. Every modern copyright policy becomes Internet policy – policy that touches on every aspect of how we use the net.

And as we make the transition from a world where everything we do includes an online component to a world where everything we do requires an online component, it’s becoming the case that there’s no such thing as ‘‘Internet policy’’ – there’s just policy.

I’m all for sorting out the rules that govern the entertainment’s supply chain, but let’s keep some perspective here: when we ‘‘solve’’ copyright problems at the expense of the Internet, we solve them at the expense of 21st-century society as a whole.

- Cory Doctorow, from http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2011/11/cory-doctorow-its-time-to-stop-talking-about-copyright/

[ariapluscat]

I'm suspicious of the idea that we need major copyright reform to make art-fields profitable. the foam on this thread is wild tho so please continue lol

[Mmm_Donuts]

Back to the OP topic - I have made my living as an artist and commercial artist for 20+ years. It can be done. I've done it, and I personally know literally hundreds of people who also make a living in the arts. I actually don't know what OP is talking about, and we clearly exist in very different social circles!

In my experience the internet has opened up many more possibilities for visual artists and writers. Yes, the web is flooded with many people who write and create art, and not very much of it is "good" or interesting or popular. BUT it is far easier to self promote these days. I know many people who have become popular enough to make a decent living via tumblr or instagram, just by putting their work out there. Instagram artists are a real phenomenon! But, of course, you have to have skill, and be doing something that appeals to people. That hasn't changed. But the middleman gallery aspect is no longer needed to make a living as an artist. Galleries definitely have a place in the "art world", but for the 99% of artists who have not become household names, there are other more direct avenues to reach an audience.

It's just not true that putting yourself out there means your work will get stolen. For anyone who is satisfied with a 72dpi 800 pixel wide image, there are many more who want a high res or original work. You have to be seen before this can happen. The more people share your work, even if they take an image you have provided and use it as desktop art or whatever, the more likely your work is to be sold. This has been the case of every visual artist I know, and online presence is invaluable to their businesses. Obviously this has reduced revenue of some middlemen like record companies on their mainstream artists, but for many non-mainstream (visual) artists it is possible to build an audience by giving things away for free before people will spread the word about you and be willing to buy from you. This goes for blogging, visual arts, etc. It's called marketing, which has a cost - the cost is that some people will be satisfied with free work, while they spread the word for you, and grow your audience for you.

As for going into a STEM career, then retiring to do art - this is like suggesting an athlete take on a STEM career then retire to be an athlete. If you're going to make it in a challenging field, and truly have the talent and dedication, then it's far better to use your formative years to develop your talent. I studied art in HS and college and against all odds made an excellent living at it. My parents would have been thrilled if I went into a STEM career but there is no way I would have become an artist without working at it consistently through my teens, 20s and 30s.

[Jack]

I'm suspicious of the idea that we need major copyright reform to make art-fields profitable.

We absolutely need major copyright reform, but in the opposite direction from what the "make the art-fields profitable" people think they want.