Hell With Them, They're Thieves...

[mollycase]

All these same worries came from the Blank VHS and Blank Cassette days...same with early cable showing movies. "No one would go to the movies anymore" and "not so many new movies will be made now that people can watch all the old ones easily"...same things were said when TV itself first came to life..."The movies are over".

All of that EXPLODED due to such technologies and it will happen again ...we're going to see more music, more tv, and more commercials...only in non traditional ways and in non traditional means.

A product survives by people wanting it...look at Family Guy...syndication and piracy brought it back from the dead ...a format that stuidos fought to KILL (the DVD) made it a monster hit than it was when it came out.

Can't fear technology...one should embrace it for what it can do if left to grow and evolve as it should.

I certainly embrace technology. For goodness sake, I write a science fiction blog for fun. My worry is that when I was taping a friend's album on cassette I knew that I was stealing because I was poor. People who steal online do not seem to know they are stealing and that means that antipiracy measures must be a much bigger part of any new distribution technology. It is the honest end-users who pay the costs of that antipiracy tech.

[Amelia G]

The physical form is what counts...the final product is all anyone cares about...not about what it took and who it took to get there. If it takes so many damned people to do the job then their is a serious problem with the entire industry. They should have embraced the digital distribution method to cut the fat...if you need so many people to keep a band successful...then it is either profitable enough even WITH the piracy to keep it alive...or it's simply not true. Look at bands who've gained popularity by going from the studio to the net...or really only gained popularity and attention BECAUSE of people sharing their music.

If an industry is so bloated that it needs so much to keep their procuct afloat and that a simple technology they WERE TOLD ABOUT YEARS BEFORE can kill then...then again...fuck em. None and I mean NONE of their past "Industry destorying" fears have come true...all of it helped make them MORE money...

They're just pissed they haven't found the magic way to do it yet and are getting impatient.

We have the amazing distribution method of the internet. As a photographer and writer and editor, I was very frustrated by the old print distribution methods and the horrid middlemen I had to go through. The internet has been very freeing in many respects to any artist willing to put the extra work in, but it is very frustrating as well to have to wear so many hats. Sometimes I just want to cry when I think about how much farther along I could be as say a photographer or a writer if I did not have to spend so much time doing the business part of the job.

If bands could get their work out there without the hard work of a legion of other people who get no groupie blowjobs, then they would. Big names like Prince and, I believe, David Bowie have taken stabs at it and ended up coming back to the labels. So the labels and the other support people must be bringing something to the table.

I think bands whine so much because it makes it easier for them to get free work out of people like me.

[ForrestBlack]

All these same worries came from the Blank VHS and Blank Cassette days...same with early cable showing movies. "No one would go to the movies anymore" and "not so many new movies will be made now that people can watch all the old ones easily"...same things were said when TV itself first came to life..."The movies are over".

People worried about herpes, till AIDS came along. That does not reduce the magnitude of danger AIDS represents. Back when people were worried about the VCR, they had no idea about peer to peer sharing. However, it is still legitimate to consider the ramifications of any sort of threat to business or intelectual property. It doesn't sound like it's your company or your wallet at stake. You are free to run a music label or independent film company and assign the rights however you choose, but it is not your right to reassign the rights of others as you see fit.

All of that EXPLODED due to such technologies and it will happen again ...we're going to see more music, more tv, and more commercials...only in non traditional ways and in non traditional means.

I HATE the new 'non-traditional' commercial methods. Fake 'street teams' making fake blogs and fake journal posts and fake board posts all about how they looooovvveee so-and-so's band. Bullshit is the new 30 second spot. Vandalism is the new billboard. I think it all sucks.

A product survives by people wanting it...look at Family Guy...syndication and piracy brought it back from the dead ...a format that studios fought to KILL (the DVD) made it a monster hit than it was when it came out.

Can't fear technology...one should embrace it for what it can do if left to grow and evolve as it should.

But people fear it if it protects artist rights and embrace it if it allows them to abuse artists rights. You don't get it both ways. Syndication and viewer response may have saved Family Guy, but I don't believe for a second that piracy really saved the show. And even if I granted you that, and agreed that perhaps it did, it was still theft. It was still piracy, and it bothers me that so many people break the rules without accepting the idea that they are indeed breaking the rules.

[Tequila Zaire]

I certainly embrace technology. For goodness sake, I write a science fiction blog for fun. My worry is that when I was taping a friend's album on cassette I knew that I was stealing because I was poor. People who steal online do not seem to know they are stealing and that means that antipiracy measures must be a much bigger part of any new distribution technology. It is the honest end-users who pay the costs of that antipiracy tech.

See that's the thing...making a copy on a cassette actually ended up being GOOD for the industry since more people heard it and artists got more attention and bigger turn outs at shows. Legally an artist can't have their single play more than once an hour or some strange rule like that on the radio...but bootleg tapes, sharing, and mix cd's people traded always boosted the attention an artist got.

All anti-piracy protection does is annoy and cause problems in how the end product is used. I hate having to use normal CD's..I like mixing CD's, ripping tracks onto my portable devices, and keeping things as easy to use as possible...not lugging around a case of 80 friggin albums so I can switch between CD's when I want.

That's vile and old.

Plus the industry needs to embrace the fact we no longer live in a 10 to 15 track a discr world...people carry around entire COLLECTIONS of music now with ease...and as a result people listen to MORE music by MORE artists than ever. It's not odd to have 1000track long playlists...or people listening to mixes that last for hours...

No real need for traditional radio as a result and with subscription radio services that do away with the entire traditional commercials-song-commercials...radio too will change.

[Tequila Zaire]

People worried about herpes, till AIDS came along. That does not reduce the magnitude of danger AIDS represents. Back when people were worried about the VCR, they had no idea about peer to peer sharing. However, it is still legitimate to consider the ramifications of any sort of threat to business or intelectual property. It doesn't sound like it's your company or your wallet at stake. You are free to run a music label or independent film company and assign the rights however you choose, but it is not your right to reassign the rights of others as you see fit.

It may not be my right but when the majority around the world engage in a practice that fundementally changes how music is listened to, shared, distributed, and thought of...you simply have to deal with the fact that is the new reality...or die a slow death by trying to ignore it all or label it as one big evil. If your customers have found a better method and one they like and prefer...then maybe...just maybe..it's time to change.

I HATE the new 'non-traditional' commercial methods. Fake 'street teams' making fake blogs and fake journal posts and fake board posts all about how they looooovvveee so-and-so's band. Bullshit is the new 30 second spot. Vandalism is the new billboard. I think it all sucks.

Doubt it has many fans but something has to change since the traditional methods are so old it's easy to ignore them.Their has to be better ways to promote a band with the technology available...if fake blogs and boards are all they can manage then that's just sad. Still bands are partially to blame since few take the time to actually USE the technology to promote themselves or even interact with fans. It'd be much better than leaving it to middle men and "experts".

But people fear it if it protects artist rights and embrace it if it allows them to abuse artists rights. You don't get it both ways. Syndication and viewer response may have saved Family Guy, but I don't believe for a second that piracy really saved the show. And even if I granted you that, and agreed that perhaps it did, it was still theft. It was still piracy, and it bothers me that so many people break the rules without accepting the idea that they are indeed breaking the rules.

Breaking what rules though? Ones that kill so many artists and shows? It's far more evil for Fox to put Family Guy on thursday nights across from the biggest shows on TV and basicly assassinate it. The only reason it even HIT syndication was that so many had files of the show floating around...The Cartoon Network picked it up in a desperate attempt to gain something that tied into their adult swim lineup more than the other syndicated cartoon shows that were out there...at one point they practicly picked up ANYTHING that was discarded from the networks. People enjoyed FG and it had a core fanbase...CN lucked out with it being the monster hit it was for them and showed exactly how much the show really was loved...

Just not on thursday night across Friends.

What's better in the end? Something made to be seen actually gets seen and enjoyed or it does off cause "ratings" were not high and back to those mammoth underground vaults in Kansas never to be seen again? Many great shows simply sit in vaults even though fans ASK AND BEG to buy them...hell I pleaded to get VHS copies of this old show I liked as a kid...

The bootleg scene is the ONLY place to find many great shows that are forgotten or simply sitting in vaults cause it's too expensive to release...and oddly many shows CAN'T be released due to INANE laws associated with the RIAA.

[23*]

Why would anyone bother to be a Doctor then? If the easy road and the hard road were equally rewarding, I can tell you which road most would take. Hell, most people take the easy road even though they know it's not going to be as rewarding already.

A carpenter makes decent money, and if they are good and bother to learn a lot, they will make forman, and make more, and soon they will run the contracting business and make more money, hopefully. Not everyone succeeds, but the dream is to better yourself and your situation. What good could come from incenting people to be big lazy losers? Would that make a happier planet? Even in a communist system, you still had theives that felt that they were not given their fair share, so it was ok, in their mind, to rob and extort the innocent hardworking people around them.

How many albums does the average band put out? How many albums is the average music exec responsible for putting out? I know how much effort goes into cutting an ok album, sure it's some work, but not nearly as much as some people make it out to be. Bands think they just need to lay down twelve tracks and then they should live in the Hollywood hills for life. They point at management when it's time to get tough on theft because it would hurt their image to be seen going after their so-called fans. I've seen management work day and night to help promote dozens of bands. Publicity departments writing far more eloquently than the lyrics on some of the albums they are promoting. It takes hundreds, if not thousands, of people to provide the support structure for a successful band. Should these people do it all for free because some cheapo noticed that it took fifteen cents worth of plastic and paper to manifest the album in physical form?

Why would anyone bother to be a doctor? Hmm… here’s an idea; they become doctors out of a genuine wish to help people.

Easy roads & Hard Roads? What are you talking about? You think people working as butchers and waitresses are being lazy losers? My friends have worked their asses off in shit jobs to provide people with valuable yet underappreciated services just to get by … you wanna go tell them they deserve a lesser salary than a doctor?

I’m studying for a B.A. and I don’t have any ridiculous notions that I should be entitled to anymore than anyone else when I graduate. Moreover, most students aren’t even interested in actually learning, they are only interested in the career opportunities it provides; fair enough, but don’t try telling me that having a Masters in medicine makes you a good doctor. At least not until they have a way of measuring other types of intelligence rather than academic. Remember, your IQ is something entirely independent to your level of education.

I wasn’t promoting communism, I was saying that I don’t believe that musicians, doctors, photographers, event managers and artists should be given special status and higher wages then the people who work the tills.

And yes, at one stage, I was talking about the music industry.

[Amelia G]

Why would anyone bother to be a doctor? Hmm… here’s an idea; they become doctors out of a genuine wish to help people.

Easy roads & Hard Roads? What are you talking about? You think people working as butchers and waitresses are being lazy losers? My friends have worked their asses off in shit jobs to provide people with valuable yet underappreciated services just to get by … you wanna go tell them they deserve a lesser salary than a doctor?

I’m studying for a B.A. and I don’t have any ridiculous notions that I should be entitled to anymore than anyone else when I graduate. Moreover, most students aren’t even interested in actually learning, they are only interested in the career opportunities it provides; fair enough, but don’t try telling me that having a Masters in medicine makes you a good doctor. At least not until they have a way of measuring other types of intelligence rather than academic. Remember, your IQ is something entirely independent to your level of education.

I wasn’t promoting communism, I was saying that I don’t believe that musicians, doctors, photographers, event managers and artists should be given special status and higher wages then the people who work the tills.

And yes, at one stage, I was talking about the music industry.

I think that if someone delays gratification and sacrifices on the front end, it is only right that they should reap greater rewards later on. This is not just capitalism but karma.

It is a simple fact of life that many people are lazy. You can hand them a gift-wrapped opportunity and they will not bother to take it.

It is also a sad fact of life that many hard-working people never get the opportunities to do great things they would excel at.

I worked as a waitress when I was in school and it was a hell of a lot easier and a lot less demanding than what I do now. I was free to daydream while I did it because it didn't take up my whole brain.

This may be getting off-topic, but I started Blue Blood in print from the basement of a punk rock group house with money from long hours spent at awful demeaning day jobs. My number one motivation was this provide a venue where all the incredible cool creative people I knew could show the world how talented they were. I wanted to be a writer and wished someone would do that for me. Turns out that only some of those people, talking about how all they needed was an opportunity . . . well, only some of them wanted an opportunity; some of them just wanted an excuse for why they did nothing.

Sometimes I get really sad when I think about the way some people throw away opportunities that I only wish someone would have given to me. But that is just the way the world is and I need to learn to accept it.

If someone prepares longer for their job and works harder at it, why shouldn't the job be more rewarding for them than the job of someone who did not prepare at all and doesn't work hard at it?

[karyn]

Why would anyone bother to be a doctor? Hmm… here’s an idea; they become doctors out of a genuine wish to help people.

Easy roads & Hard Roads? What are you talking about? You think people working as butchers and waitresses are being lazy losers? My friends have worked their asses off in shit jobs to provide people with valuable yet underappreciated services just to get by … you wanna go tell them they deserve a lesser salary than a doctor?

I’m studying for a B.A. and I don’t have any ridiculous notions that I should be entitled to anymore than anyone else when I graduate. Moreover, most students aren’t even interested in actually learning, they are only interested in the career opportunities it provides; fair enough, but don’t try telling me that having a Masters in medicine makes you a good doctor. At least not until they have a way of measuring other types of intelligence rather than academic. Remember, your IQ is something entirely independent to your level of education.

I wasn’t promoting communism, I was saying that I don’t believe that musicians, doctors, photographers, event managers and artists should be given special status and higher wages then the people who work the tills.

And yes, at one stage, I was talking about the music industry.

a butcher is a skilled job and pays well because it takes training and know-how to do it. it is a difficult job to get without family connections.

a doctor has - wait for it - a doctorate not a masters as a rule. iq is not what makes a doctor a good doctor. a person could have a 200 iq and if they had not taken years of their life to learn medicine i sure wouldn't want them to be my doctor.

i guess mommy and daddy are paying for your education and you aren't hitting the books too often if you entertain the communist notion that someone who has bothered to get an education deserves something more than someone who has not. you are used to getting a free ride so you think it should go on forever. i hate when people think the world owes them a free ride. some people have to work you know.

[tinstar]

I really can't add anything to this discussion, but I would like to show my support for both Forrest and Amelia. This thread has given me tons of intellectual ammo for the next time someone wants to shove this topic down my throat. ...and bravo karyn.. I can always respect someone who can recognize communism

[23*]

a butcher is a skilled job and pays well because it takes training and know-how to do it. it is a difficult job to get without family connections.

a doctor has - wait for it - a doctorate not a masters as a rule. iq is not what makes a doctor a good doctor. a person could have a 200 iq and if they had not taken years of their life to learn medicine i sure wouldn't want them to be my doctor.

IQ is certainly not what makes a doctor a good doctor, that is my point; a good doctor needs not only a high iq and capacity to remember large quantities of information, but among many other things, a strong emotional intelligence.

i guess mommy and daddy are paying for your education and you aren't hitting the books too often if you entertain the communist notion that someone who has bothered to get an education deserves something more than someone who has not. you are used to getting a free ride so you think it should go on forever. i hate when people think the world owes them a free ride. some people have to work you know.

you seem to have misinterupted what i said. I have been saying exactly the opposite; that people with an education do not deserve to get more than other people solely on that basis. I think, i'll ignore your cheap shots here...it was entirely unwarranted and childish.

[23*]

I think that if someone delays gratification and sacrifices on the front end, it is only right that they should reap greater rewards later on. This is not just capitalism but karma.

It is a simple fact of life that many people are lazy. You can hand them a gift-wrapped opportunity and they will not bother to take it.

It is also a sad fact of life that many hard-working people never get the opportunities to do great things they would excel at.

I worked as a waitress when I was in school and it was a hell of a lot easier and a lot less demanding than what I do now. I was free to daydream while I did it because it didn't take up my whole brain.

This may be getting off-topic, but I started Blue Blood in print from the basement of a punk rock group house with money from long hours spent at awful demeaning day jobs. My number one motivation was this provide a venue where all the incredible cool creative people I knew could show the world how talented they were. I wanted to be a writer and wished someone would do that for me. Turns out that only some of those people, talking about how all they needed was an opportunity . . . well, only some of them wanted an opportunity; some of them just wanted an excuse for why they did nothing.

Sometimes I get really sad when I think about the way some people throw away opportunities that I only wish someone would have given to me. But that is just the way the world is and I need to learn to accept it.

If someone prepares longer for their job and works harder at it, why shouldn't the job be more rewarding for them than the job of someone who did not prepare at all and doesn't work hard at it?

i agree with you amelia and as a sidenote, i greatly admire what you and forrest have done and continue to do.

But i think the reward should be in the very act of doing something you enjoy; not in getting a larger pay packet.

[23*]

I can always respect someone who can recognize communism

yup...we betta find dose commis an string um up yall !

[tinstar]

yup...we betta find dose commis an string um up yall !

lol come on... I am not one of those people who find communism in everything... But I think "file sharing" is clearly a socialist thing. Who says that anyone "deserves" (inherently, with no investment on their own behalf) to own a piece of you without your consent? Only socialism declares that you must offer your services for the "benefit of the public at large" and holds selflessness as the highest moral achievement.

As for stringing them up, be my guest. Their fucked up bureaucracy and cronyism has been turning my city into a wasteland for 40 years.

[tinstar]

But i think the reward should be in the very act of doing something you enjoy; not in getting a larger pay packet.

That's great, but I bet they enjoy eating food, sleeping on a comfortable bed, and pooping in a clean toilet, too. These things cost money.

[23*]

That's great, but I bet they enjoy eating food, sleeping on a comfortable bed, and pooping in a clean toilet, too. These things cost money.

Of course, my whole argument is that these people should be afforded the same standard of living as anyone else. If you are a good photographer with an interesting angle (metaphorically) you should be paid the same as a good doctor, film director, factory supervisor or whatever.

there is more than enough money to go around my friend ...

[ForrestBlack]

Of course, my whole argument is that these people should be afforded the same standard of living as anyone else. If you are a good photographer with an interesting angle (metaphorically) you should be paid the same as a good doctor, film director, factory supervisor or whatever.

there is more than enough money to go around my friend ...

No, there clearly is not enough to go around.

As a photographer, I could choose a more commercial style and advertise myself as a more commercial worker. Someone that takes nice pictures of cool people doesn't make as much as a wedding photographer or even a catalog photographer. I'm ok with that. I chose what I do because I want to do it and I sometimes enjoy it. It should be my choice wether or not my work is commercially viable. If everyone were to be paid the same, then everybody would have to be evaluated as to the viability of their work. There are also photographers that produce things of no significant value whatsoever. I don't want to tow the line for them, nor do I want to bow to pressure to produce something of more commercial value than I already do.

Say two guys work as nurse's and one takes his job very seriously, while the other shows up late and tired because he takes his band much more seriously. Should they both be treated the same? Should the guy doing a bad job make twice as much because he is in a band and is a nurse at the same time?

I think the issue is really the individuals right to determine their own lot in life. If I chose to write great software, odds are good that I might make some useful applications that made money and some applications that were really cool that didn't make money. It would be up to me. To say that everyone should be even removes the free will of the individual and ignores the simple fact that we are not all even. Freedom is only equality in that it gives you the opportunity to choose your path, it does not guarantee that all paths will be equally rewarding, but does allow for the fact that different people are rewarded in many different ways. That should be respected.

[Morning Glory]

explain to me how there's not enough money to go around when some people make billions of dollars a year, and there's over a billion people in the world that makes less than one dollar a day?

[Skavian]

I think in the contemporary view of artistic value a lot of people tend to think that somehow what they produce should sustain them as individuals. I realize I am going to make a lot of people angry by posting this, but art should not be a job, ever. If you have a creative vision, it should be a cultural gift, a benefit to humanity that enriches us as a whole, not you. Anything I do as an artist I distribute for free because I want the freedom of movement in creation. I don't mind working a more mundane job, and in fact most of the greatest works of art come from individuals who were not "artists," but rather ordinary working folk who then produced relevant pieces of art out of their experiences. I know I rag on Eliot, but for instance the author of The Wasteland worked as a bank clerk and wrote that highly regarded poem during his lunch breaks and when he got home from work.

To bring this back into focus, I think charging for things like movies, or songs or what have you is nearly ludicrous unless that money is going directly into the process of bringing the music or whatever closer to the people that might experience. For instance, paying to see a band at a show or buying their CDs there so that they can live a little longer to make it to the next place. As a capitalistic enterprise though, you end up separating valuable artistic vision from its place in the hearts and minds of humanity. To be a professional "artist," is to deny a certain sector of the population access to a necessary social function that poets, artists, musicians, etc. serve. I feel, as a writer, I am a functionary of humanity that is necessary for its survival. Grandiose, I realize, but that's how I view this whole debate on copyrights and theft and shit like that.

[Ellis]

Well said, Skavian.

[ForrestBlack]

...If you have a creative vision, it should be a cultural gift, a benefit to humanity that enriches us as a whole, not you. Anything I do as an artist I distribute for free because I want the freedom of movement in creation...

You have the freedom to do with your art as you please. The line between art and craft is not so clear though. When does an architect cross the line from designer to artist? Should Frank Lloyd Wright design buildings for free because he does a more beautiful job than many others? You have the freedom to choose what you distribute for rewards such as personal satisfaction and the glow you get from your cultural philanthropy, but it is simply wrong for you to dictate to others that they should not be rewarded if their contribution is deemed too artistically valuable.

[Skavian]

Should Frank Lloyd Wright design buildings for free because he does a more beautiful job than many others

Should Frank Lloyd Wright been designing buildings in the first place?


I can't dictate to people ultimately their own courses in life, but I still have an opinion on the matter that I think should be shared. My point is that from a humanistic viewpoint, the less that is contributed to culture, the less culture matters. Being an artist for pay is not really a sustainable contribution because you are limited by capital. Some would make an argument I imagine to the effect of: "I don't feel like working," or "Because the world is capitalistic I can't produce anyways so I might as well get paid for what I can produce." Fine, those opinions aren't exactly invalid. I just think they are sad.

[23*]

No, there clearly is not enough to go around.

Wealth Distribution Statistics

"The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reported in 1998 that the world's 225 richest people now have a combined wealth of $1 trillion. That's equal to the combined annual income of the world's 2.5 billion poorests people.

The wealth of the three most well-to-do individuals now exceeds the combined GDP of the 48 least developed countries."

Say two guys work as nurse's and one takes his job very seriously, while the other shows up late and tired because he takes his band much more seriously. Should they both be treated the same? Should the guy doing a bad job make twice as much because he is in a band and is a nurse at the same time?

I think the issue is really the individuals right to determine their own lot in life. If I chose to write great software, odds are good that I might make some useful applications that made money and some applications that were really cool that didn't make money. It would be up to me. To say that everyone should be even removes the free will of the individual and ignores the simple fact that we are not all even. Freedom is only equality in that it gives you the opportunity to choose your path, it does not guarantee that all paths will be equally rewarding, but does allow for the fact that different people are rewarded in many different ways. That should be respected.

No. Everyone should be paid the same wage because then there would be less bad nurses. Only people that were genuinely interested in healthcare would go for it, not just the people interested in the economic incentive. The government should accommodate for a wider cross-section of people. The assumption that people should go to college is ridiculous. It does not mean that they will be good at their jobs and it does not mean that they are smarter or more able bodied then anyone else. The simple fact is that a majority of people that go to university are there for the wrong reasons. We give an illusionary status to college graduates.

If you are a bad nurse then you shouldn't be paid as a nurse; there are different jobs available for different people and jobs with a lower learning curve available for more challenged people.

I do believe that we are all equal so long as we are all working. I resent the fact that people consider it ok for a window cleaner to be paid less than a nurse because as far as i'm concerned both are providing a social service. If they are good at what they do then they should be paid equally; each person should contribute according to their own ability. Window cleaning is probably not the most intellectually challenging job and thus we can assume that it is also not the most intellectually rewarding job. That person might be encouraged to work towards something more suitable but the simple fact is that plenty of people are happy to do any job which pays the bills because their life is what happens outside of work anyway.

I do of course realise that your view is perfectly fair and sensible in the current socio-political situation and that mine is basically unattainable. This is just my opinion.

[23*]

I think in the contemporary view of artistic value a lot of people tend to think that somehow what they produce should sustain them as individuals. I realize I am going to make a lot of people angry by posting this, but art should not be a job, ever. If you have a creative vision, it should be a cultural gift, a benefit to humanity that enriches us as a whole, not you. Anything I do as an artist I distribute for free because I want the freedom of movement in creation. I don't mind working a more mundane job, and in fact most of the greatest works of art come from individuals who were not "artists," but rather ordinary working folk who then produced relevant pieces of art out of their experiences. I know I rag on Eliot, but for instance the author of The Wasteland worked as a bank clerk and wrote that highly regarded poem during his lunch breaks and when he got home from work.

To bring this back into focus, I think charging for things like movies, or songs or what have you is nearly ludicrous unless that money is going directly into the process of bringing the music or whatever closer to the people that might experience. For instance, paying to see a band at a show or buying their CDs there so that they can live a little longer to make it to the next place. As a capitalistic enterprise though, you end up separating valuable artistic vision from its place in the hearts and minds of humanity. To be a professional "artist," is to deny a certain sector of the population access to a necessary social function that poets, artists, musicians, etc. serve. I feel, as a writer, I am a functionary of humanity that is necessary for its survival. Grandiose, I realize, but that's how I view this whole debate on copyrights and theft and shit like that.

yes this is a damn good point. I wish i had thought of it because it works perfectly beside my own opinion. I guess the difficulty is in drawing the dividing line between what qualifies as art and what does not.

[ForrestBlack]

Should Frank Lloyd Wright been designing buildings in the first place?


I can't dictate to people ultimately their own courses in life, but I still have an opinion on the matter that I think should be shared. My point is that from a humanistic viewpoint, the less that is contributed to culture, the less culture matters. Being an artist for pay is not really a sustainable contribution because you are limited by capital. Some would make an argument I imagine to the effect of: "I don't feel like working," or "Because the world is capitalistic I can't produce anyways so I might as well get paid for what I can produce." Fine, those opinions aren't exactly invalid. I just think they are sad.

What of the artists that make a decent income from their art and use that income to produce for art? Isn't that a worth goal? Are they not contributing more? Yet people seem to begrudge them the income, even if it all goas back into getting the supplies and the equiptment to produce the very stuff that the people want more and more of. I've been poor and gone hungry to produce things that were artistically important to me. If I were to be able to make some money from what I created, I'm certain that I could create more. So, to have someone tell me that making money from my creation is wrong, meanwhile they are enjoying my creation and asking for more, well, I just don't understand where they expect it to come from.

[Skavian]

What of the artists that make a decent income from their art and use that income to produce for art? Isn't that a worth goal? Are they not contributing more? Yet people seem to begrudge them the income, even if it all goas back into getting the supplies and the equiptment to produce the very stuff that the people want more and more of. I've been poor and gone hungry to produce things that were artistically important to me. If I were to be able to make some money from what I created, I'm certain that I could create more. So, to have someone tell me that making money from my creation is wrong, meanwhile they are enjoying my creation and asking for more, well, I just don't understand where they expect it to come from.

I said earlier "To bring this back into focus, I think charging for things like movies, or songs or what have you is nearly ludicrous unless that money is going directly into the process of bringing the music or whatever closer to the people that might experience." My entire second paragraph was about the sustainability of art, and that being a justification for producing it. I figured that was pretty clear, oh well.

[ForrestBlack]

I said earlier "To bring this back into focus, I think charging for things like movies, or songs or what have you is nearly ludicrous unless that money is going directly into the process of bringing the music or whatever closer to the people that might experience." My entire second paragraph was about the sustainability of art, and that being a justification for producing it. I figured that was pretty clear, oh well.

No, I understood your second paragraph, but the implication is that a creative entity would have to throw open their books for every bozo that came along and questioned their artistic integrity. That is not a world I want to live in. There are a lot of people that don't understand the inner workings of various industries that feel fully justified in telling other people how to create. They may have egalitarian sentiments, but sometimes people that actually do something know how it works a little better that armchair pundits that just want something for nothing.

[Skavian]

I don't know, I don't think I am implying you have to create anything at all. You can do with it what you want of course, I just think charging for it is ill-placed.