Should the RIAA offer music downloads?

[Dreaming_of_Maria_Callas]

Sorry, I mistyped the response to the final paragraph of yosemitebabe. It should have been thusly:

*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
**Would you also agree that if someone creates some work and allows others “access” to it, (be having it on display in their home, leaving a sketchbook lying on their desk, showing a copy of a manuscript to a friend, whatever) then that means that they are not legally entitled to object if free copies of these works end up being distributed to the public at large? **

Legally they are not entitled at the present time. But the law sucks, and I would wholeheartedly support anyone who copies and distributes art they were lucky enough to have access to, as I hope happens with your photographs so you’ll understand the impossibility of limiting the spread of information in our digital age.

UnuMondo

[yosemite]

UnuMondo—wow. That’s all I can say is—wow.

I won’t even bother replying to your other “opinions,” other than to say that I’ve developed an “opinion” of my own—that everything worth doing should be done for the “love” of it, and if someone wants to get paid for it, they are whores and obviously aren’t very good. Yep, that’s it.

Good grief.

But the law sucks, and I would wholeheartedly support anyone who copies and distributes art they were lucky enough to have access to, as I hope happens with your photographs so you’ll understand the impossibility of limiting the spread of information in our digital age.

Oh, I get it.

THE LAW SUCKS because photo labs are not allowed to scan everyone’s negatives and put copies of their customers’ photographs online and distribute their customer’s photographs? That’s what you think?

Damn. Amazing.

So, everyone, you’d better watch it. According to UnuMondo (and our own Mr2001, as he admitted on another thread), if you don’t keep all your writings, drawings, photos, articles, compositions—just about anything you do—if you don’t keep them under lock and key and out of the sight of everyone, well, you are asking to have your stuff “shared” with the world. Because "information wants to be free!"

Even the family photos that you get developed at the photo lab. And if you are stupid enough to have a friend proof a copy of something you wrote, or show them a painting in progress, well, according to UnuMondo, he hopes and supports the idea that your friend will distribute that work to the entire world. It would be a good thing if they did that, because "information wants to be free!"

And if someone has “access” to your computer, well, all your files on there are free for the taking and, really, all your files on there want to be free! And if you have any “private” files you made (of an intimate nature, for instance) well, better make sure no one has “access” to them either, because all of these things you produced for personal reasons, well, they really want to be free! Everybody should be able to see them! It should be legal for everyone to see them!

And if anyone manages to “free” your artwork, writing, photos, compositions (or naughty pictures) to the world, well, hey, that’s wonderful and according to UnuMondo (and Mr2001) it should be totally legal. Because all your writings, scribblings, personal photos—they all really want to be free! Don’t you see? Isn’t it obvious? :rolleyes:

[Ms2001]

Huzzah, it’s another fresh load of moral outrage from friend yosemitebabe. Here’s the Pit thread she’s so worked up about.

[Zander]

This discussion is stunning. I find it nearly impossible to believe that people would really believe that intellectual property should be free.

If intellectual property is free, what then should cost money? Material goods? So then if Joe Artist designs a picture and GloboChem Corporation makes it into a T-shirt, should only GloboChem be paid when someone buys it? Should only the book publisher be paid when someone buys a hardcover book? Should only the framer or gallery owner be paid when someone buys a painting? Should only the movie theater be paid when people see a movie? Are these people really deserving of the money that they could not possibly make without the artists’ input?

I’m a full-time professional writer and artist, and I know what constitutes artistic motivation. Sometimes it is genuine inspiration. Sometimes it is a paycheck. If you are not an artist yourself, I’m afraid you can read all the biographies you like, but you will not know what it is like to create art.

**Removing copyright would put support of art back into the hands of the wealthy. I believe that the wealthy are more competent to judge art than the pedestrian.

**
I’m shocked. Do you really think a lottery winner, a day trader, and a real estate mogul have more ability to judge art than a librarian, a music instructor, and a small business owner, just because they are wealthy? And what about a college student, Unumondo? I tell you one thing, if the wealthy were in charge of all art, you certainly wouldn’t be seeing anything that supports your anarchic “information should be free” ideals. And much as I disagree with that outlook, I think that would be a tragedy.

**This may seem an abhorrent proposition to some of you, but many of the real artists of 100 years ago wrote about the coming apocalypse of art when the masses would decide what is good and what is not.

**
Are you suggesting that the masses are deciding what is “good” or not now? Can you not find reviewers that share your elitist disregard for work created in the last half-century? I certainly can. If you think that it is a tyranny of the masses that a zillion people see some summer blockbuster and hardly anyone sees an art house movie or a local play, I will remind you that no one is being forced to or forced not to see either one, and they are both available to all. Do you think the playing field will be leveled if money is taken out of the equation? People’s preferences won’t change. People won’t have any more spare time than they do, and the artists creating art for your benefit will have none at all.

**Yes, there might be less art, but more of it would be quality, and in a managable quantity.

**
And who determines quality? The wealthy? You? The Supreme Court? The president? Different things appeal to different people.

**There’s a difference. If - when I do rise to lecturer as right now I’m just a student - the university refuses to pay me, I can refuse to work. Artists can’t. Their inner muses so drive them to create that the lack of financial remuneration would not hamper them. One cannot compare a 9-to-5 job to the life of many artists, as Joe Bag’O’Donuts can quit and sit on the couch all day, while artists remain enslaved to inspiration.

**
Oh, how scary! Enslaved to inspiration! I believe all of us are enslaved to EATING EVERY DAY, HAVING A PLACE TO LIVE, AND PROVIDING OUR FAMILIES WITH MEDICAL CARE. Even you and your free-as-a-bird Joe Bag’O’Donuts. Try doing that while sitting on the couch all day.

**As for the artists who have to work 8+ hours, fuck 'em. If they aren’t talented enough to find a patron, their contributions to art can disappear for all I care.

**
“Talented” according to whom? Many of the greatest artists in history were unknown and/or poorly regarded during their lifetimes. Yeah, fuck them.

And where are these “patrons” you speak of? And how do these patrons make the work available to others who would like to see/read/hear them? Just pay for it all out of their own pockets? I do believe you would not be seeing that worthy, magnificent art anytime soon, Unumondo, unless you’re frequently invited to fancy soirees at the houses of wealthy art patrons (and with that attitude, I would guess not).

Look, I appreciate the hard-core DIY aesthetic as much as anyone. I can dig the idea that if you’re truly talented, you’ll find a way to make your work known, and you could care less about money or recognition. That’s great. And if you’re an artist and you want that to be your personal philosophy, super, knock yourself out. But you’re not an artist. You don’t even seem to personally know any artists. You’re just a person with a titanic sense of entitlement who wants everyone else to have that attitude so that you don’t have to waste your precious pennies to obtain something you enjoy.

On the original topic, I do download music here and there because it’s the easiest way to get music, but I would fully support an inexpensive (<$.25), fast, and convenient mode of legally downloading music. I would very much like for my money to go toward the artists that create them.

Zander