That’s just silly. Being good at something takes practice. Why should artistic expression be any different?
Say I’m a painter. If I have the opportunity to paint every day, isn’t it reasonable to assume that I will be better at it than someone who only gets to paint on the weekends?
“No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.” -Samuel Johnson
How many of your favorite books, music, movies, etc. would have gotten made if their creators had believed they weren’t going to get any money from them?
Even if art produced full-time isn’t better, there’s certainly a lot more of it. Consider your favorite musician, whomever that is. You really like that musician’s work, right? You probably have three, or four, or a dozen, of that musician’s albums (whether legally or not). Some of them are better than others, of course, but all of that musician’s albums are better than average.
But now consider a world where that musician wasn’t able to make a full-time job out of music. Maybe they’d have still done a couple, in their free time. But they’d only have one or two albums, total. How many of your favorite albums, or favorite songs, would never have been recorded at all, under this part-time paradigm?
This is the silliest thing I have read in a long time. Getting to a professional level as a musician takes a huge amount of time and it requires a lot of time to stay at that level. I’ve played professionally in the past and presently have a full time job and a recording studio. Right now, by the time I get done working (including drive time, paying bills, taking care of the house, etc) I end up with usually an hour or two to play on the days when I actually *have *the time to play. I am recording but it is at an exceedingly slow rate because:
a) I’m at work all the damned time
b) when I do get to play I spend a big chunk of that time practicing so that when I do actually get the time to record I can play what I want without sucking
c) writing and arranging the material to record takes up another big chunk of time so that it takes forever to get around to actually recording the music.
Even then, I am not practicing nearly enough. I should be putting in about an hour to an hour and a half each day, minimum, working on keeping my technical skills up. If I am lucky I can squeeze in an hour.
All the above doesn’t even include the time spent on the physical aspect of recording (setting up and getting good sounds, tracking down that annoying buzz that came out of nowhere, etc) or the time to mix and master.
Why shouldn’t art be restricted to those who support the artist? Or rather, to use the correct terms, why should an artists product be given away against the artists wishes to those who do not want to pay for the product?
Slee
I’d be really interested to see if this sort of business model could be sustainable. If music, and other copyable works like books, are available either free or for a nominal charge, with the expectation that people who enjoyed them would tip or give the artists what they thought the work was worth, would people do so?
This has been addressed already but . . .
I just had the good fortune to get a gig doing professional regional theater. The actors are all very good, but not necessarily better than the best members of the community theaters I work for as well. But, their performances are much better, because they can afford to spend time working on their craft because they are paid to do so. Instead of rehearsing three nights a week for three hours each time, at the end of a long day at work, we’re rehearsing eight hour days, with no other commitments.
The idea that good art always springs unpracticed and unrehearsed when the Muse strikes is poppycock
ETA:
As far as the OP goes. I don’t know the answer. I think that copyright has value, but I also think that the digital age makes some sorts of enforcement just plain unmanageable.
I notice you say you say copyright holders, not artists. Do you mean people who make copyrightable things in venues outside of what is traditionally art? Or do you mean RIAA type rackets where the copyright holder is a suit that wouldn’t know art if it hit him in the face?
How much money dd the grateful dead make before releasing an album? Concerts are money makers too.
There’s a reason that dual-person comedy acts have died out. Ultimately, the fewer people you have, the easier it is to support all of them and when you’re starting out, you can’t afford to be splitting the income.
Live performances really don’t bring in all that much money until you’re already famous. Actors in plays generally get a pittance, and so you’ll see that modern plays generally have no more than 2 or 3 performers.
But with fewer numbers, the total variety of output shrinks. When you’ve only got one format–stage presentations–your options shrink again. Queen never performed Bohemian Rhapsody live because it was something that could really only be created in a studio. Most people go to see bands because they want to dance and be lively, but that cuts out all those nice, emotional pieces that many of us still appreciate.
That Grateful Dead had something that worked for them was certainly great for them, but saying that only music which can survive in a live performance will almost definitely not be good for Music or for us.
You didn’t have much a point to begin with other than the tired notion that the best art is created when one lives in a garrett, suffering from consumption and lacking the money to purchase medicine. As you’ve admitted, this isn’t the case.
It is the heart of the matter. You seem to equate an idea with a finished product (song, book, movie, video game etc.). There is a lot of hard work and money involved in transforming an idea into something worthy of being performed or published or played. You don’t see the difference between the two? And why one can’t have a copyright while the other can?
Because, for right now, it’s against the law. Why do you feel entitled to break the law?
It boggles my mind that someone would even question why an artist should be paid for what they produce. It’s work. As a general rule, people get paid for their work.
Perhaps the better question to ask is why do you feel they shouldn’t be paid?
Do you work for free? If not, how do you justify your paycheck with that attitude?
But you didn’t answer the question, was it all right for Ford to steal Robert Kearns’s patented idea/invention?
Sour grapes, much?
A lot of people work for “RIAA type rackets” from the mail room up. The copyrighted music pays their salaries.
But really who are you to judge whether or not a copyright holder is worthy of receiving money from their copyright?
And again, who are you to justify stealing someone else’s work because they might have an alternate stream of revenue?
Interesting, so in this digital age what’s the difference between big label corporations and buggy whip manufactures?
Just someone who’d like to see the artists that actually make the music retain their copyrights if we’re to have copyrights. Copyright was established to encourage the useful arts and sciences. The RIAA acts as a suppressive mechanism.
Ahh the dred T word oh noes you got me now. Listen you ignorant. If copyright infringement is theft then jay walking is theft, murder is theft, taking too long at the drive through is theft. In short you’re depriving me of access to a language where words actually have specific meanings. Stop stealing my langauge access thief!
No mistake, I agree with you entirely, I was just commenting on the the idea that getting rid of copyright brings us beyond the idea of “getting away” with something, it makes the act entirely normal and everyone will do it.
It’s kind of like those old Bulk Candy bins at the grocery store. Many shoppers would grab a piece and eat it in the store, stealing candy because it was just so darn easy. Enforcement of the “no stealing candy” rule was basically impossible. However if it was Free Candy instead, the bins would be empty by noon on Day 1. Instead of having the occasional shopper grab a piece, every shopper would fill up a bag, because it’s no longer stealing, they’re giving it away.
Getting rid of copyright is like having bottomless free candy bins in every store, and still expecting the candy industry to exist.
I’m just saying I haven’t seen any reason to expect that added perspiration, increases the quality of subsequent work in ways which advances in technology aren’t making more and more irrelevant. (Looking back I see I have glossed over a pretty important point. Computers aren’t just replacing specialized equipment, they’re replacing specialized skills as well. Sorry for not making that clear)
Of course, but how much of that is skill with the brush and the paint as opposed to practice ‘expressing yourself’? As technology makes it easier and easier for a person to turn their ideas into art, the importance of this kind of practice becomes less and less relevant.
How many books might been your favorites but you never bought them, or they were never even published?
We can play this game all day… it never leads to any answers.
See above.
Do you think your sob story proves any kind of point, or do you want my advice on how to be a better musician?
I might as well ask why an artist should be able to distribute his product without MY permission. The only rational response is, WHY NOT? When artists could restrict their work to those who supported them, I don’t think there was anything wrong with the fact that many did so. It was their choice. But when the world changes such that it is now the public who chooses whether or not to pay… I see no reason to intervene and try to restrict the choices of the public just so the artist can continue with the status quo.
Again I must apologize. I should have been clearer in my first post. I think advances in technology are making this less and less of a problem. While hard work will still be required even if money and practising with an instrument aren’t, I see no reason to expect this would prevent non-professionals from producing work of equal quality to professionals. This is already quite visible when it comes to music, and I think it will spread to encompass all forms of art which can be distributed over the internet.
Because I can… Why else? 
Just because it’s a general rule doesn’t mean laws should be enacted to prevent exceptions. I’ll spare you the list I planned to post of all the ‘general rules’ a quick google search revealed.
Perhaps not. If you choose to pay an artist I’m not going to try to stop you. I’m not proposing anything that would actually prevent people from paying artists if they want to, or even disagreeing with your choice if you decide to pay an artist for their work.
I don’t see how this is related.
As I understood it, Ford’s infringement was not deliberate. I don’t think you can call that stealing either. And as for whether it’s ‘right’, that’s purely a matter of semantics. Morally? No. Legally? I don’t think it comes down to ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ But ultimately to a judgement in Kearns’ favour for a large sum of money. What more do you want from me on this entirely irrelevant issue?
Nope, just my judgement of the hypothetical situation.
Actually, I think it’s more like having bottomless free candy bins in every home and still expecting candy itself to exist. I don’t particularly care about the industry. And why should I if everyone has a bottomless supply of candy within easy reach?
Oops…
A little correction:
That should read ‘WRONG’, that’s purely a matter of semantics. Morally? No.
(since unintentional acts aren’t immoral as far as I know)
I really gotta get some sleep.
Radiohead did this with an entire album. Results are mixed because it’s hard to get an apples-to-apples comparison:
And note the estimate that 62% of downloaders from the Radiohead site didn’t choose to pay anything:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9832659-7.html
That leaves out the many others who probably downloaded using BitTorrent.
Hahahaha … have you ever done a stitch of creative work in your life? Written a story, composed a song, painted a picture, coded a game? What you’re saying is total, utter rubbish.
I share an office with a really good concept artist. I’ve got the same art tools on my computer as he has. When I use them I produce mediocre chicken scratches. When he uses them he produces amazing and vivid illustrations. Which is not surprising, because he’s spent literally thousands of hours practicing his drawing and I haven’t.
You really are completely ignorant of the actual effort that goes into making a work of art, aren’t you?
sleestak made a good point, and you respond with this? If you want people to take you seriously, you need to back up your arguments with solid counter-examples, data and logic, nothing you’ve posted comes close to this other than a vague unsupported statement that “technology” makes it easier.
Perhaps you can tell me then, what this good point of his was?
I must have missed it.
Are you denying that modern technology has made it possible for amateur artists to produce high quality work with less practice?
If it’s too vague, how about this. Pretty much anything with an ‘undo’ button can produce better results with less practice than a method where an artist who makes a mistake must either start over or accept some flaw in their finished product.
I think everyone is missing a big point here.
If you want to produce art for the sake of art in your spare time, you can! You can even give it whatever copyright you want - including releasing it into the public domain (which is essentially equivalent to the no copyright some people want)! No-one is stopping you!
So people already have the option to do it your way, why remove the option to make money for people who would rather do it for profit? You can stick to downloading the free stuff, and anything made for profit you just pretend does not exist (in your system it would likely have never been made anyway) and everyone is happy right?
And finally, yes modern technology has helped create good art and made it easier. I won’t deny that, at all. However it’s STILL hard and often expensive work, and requires much practice.