Incentivized Creation
from the is-that-a-threat-or-a-promise? dept
Ouch, right?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vs.
There have been millions of comments (most within the last week) that have confused the desire to get paid to do what you love with the right to get paid to do what you love.
And once you start claiming that "right," you're no longer creating art because you're an artist. You're creating product because you're a businessperson.
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with wanting to create a successful business. But successful businesses aren't normally built on demanding that your customers pay the price that you want. They'll pay what it's worth to them.
Art is inherently "worthless." That's why you've got to do it because you love it, rather than do it because it's going to feed, clothe and house you (and your family) for the next 70+ years, because in most cases, it won't.
I work two jobs and write in my spare time because I love to write. I harbor no illusions that writing will ever take the place of my other sources of income. But that doesn't stop me from doing it. Many others do the same thing in other fields.
But for some reason, the most vocal minority are those that somehow got it into their heads that the road to riches is paved with art. And to make it worse, they keep claiming that without a guaranteed paycheck, art will somehow die out. Art was never about the paycheck. It still isn't. People will still pursue what they love without hope of getting paid because THEY LOVE DOING IT.
Those of you bitching about a lack of financial protection don't love what you're doing. Stop calling it "art" and start calling it "product" if that's your thought process.
"I'll never make money making music thanks to pirates."
Great. Stop making music then. Who needs you? There are thousands and thousands of others willing to keep going despite the long odds.
"If you don't protect my art against use by others, I have no reason to create anything."
Fine. Don't. We won't miss you.
"HuffPo didn't pay us for our blogging."
I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you over the thousands of writers shouting "Pick me!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vs.
How many of the copyright maximalists are unimaginative lawyers with no artistic bone in their body?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vs.
A-Freaking-Men, brother....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vs.
Your argument should be made against *increasing* copyright duration from the original time frame. Or in favor of returning to that time frame.
This is more of an 'implementation' issue rather than whether incentivising creation should or should not exist. And I am talking about digital and physical works. Creators still have the 'right' to protect their works online.
As Mike says, its just that there's a better way in the digital world; which is not enforcing copyright when you have the infinite ability of the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vs.
I totally agree though, that demanding our commercial 'rights' is not the way to go. As Mike has pointed out time and again, obscurity is the biggest problem for a small artist/developer/business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Vs.
Sometimes that's as simple as putting out a quality product at a reasonable price. Other times it involves fun promotions (See: TF2 hats) or more risky experiments (See: Humble Indie Bundle). Regardless, somebody making art instead of "product" who would like to make money from it is in the same place with or without the so-called protections provided by copyright, and is better off ignoring them and simply focusing on creating great stuff people would be willing to buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess there should be a comma after "commercial". Even if that's the case I still don't get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can you explain punctuation usage and its applicability in modern culture?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"mercenary commercial" in this case means that "the product" is made only for the purpose of making money.
Most people agree that art's fundamental purpose is not to make money. Some people do make money from their art, but that shouldn't be the original goal. (And often enough, commercial "art" is of the same high quality as art that is made out of love).
Get it now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even Google would agree with that since they are "sick of dealing with labels".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spot on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
love it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Art, itself, isn't just the product or end result. Its the process by which the product was developed. Painstaking detail isn't enough, either. You must tak into consideration the inspirations as well.
Art is MORE about the artists' understanding of a situation and the presentation of that understanding in a form that can be appreciated by the target audience, than the actual, tangible product of the presentation.
What I find artistic about 'commercial art' is that when a design is inspiring but fits within the insanely strict guidelines set forth by the limitations of technology and the whims of every stakeholder on a project, THEN you have a work of art. But that WORK is usually limited to the creativity that the 'artist' was able to generate within those confines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]