reply to post by CretumOrbis
A musician records an album and makes millions while the guy flipping burgers probably needs a 2nd job just to get by.
What percentage of recording artists do you think make millions? Tiny fractions of one per cent. I know people who have recorded two, three albums
that would be regarded as reasonably successful here in the UK — radio airplay, placings in the lower reaches of the album chart — and they earn
no more than I do for a typical office job. If you had your way, they would not even get their £30k or £40k a year.
I don't think you know how the record industry works! Just cos you have a CD out (or iTunes album, showing my age there!), doesn't make you wealthy.
The millionaire artists make most of their money from touring. How many people can fill stadiums?
I'm sure Vincent Van Gogh would love to hear that news, among others...
What do you mean by that? Are you suggesting Van Gogh undertook his commissions for no pay? I assume you are referring to the fact that he only sold
one painting in open sale. But many of his works were painted as private commissions, mostly to his family, and many others were painted to exchange
with other artists, in return for works that could be sold. Van Gogh was constantly struggling to make a living as an artist. That was his goal. As he
wrote to his brother, who was constantly providing him with money:
"‘It’s to my astonishment that I can already see the bottom of my purse; it’s true that I had my month’s rent to pay. You must clearly know
that if I deduct food and lodging, all the rest of my money still runs away on canvases. In short, they turn out rather expensive, without counting
the trouble they cause. However, I dare hope that one day the money we spend will come back in part."
He wasn't doing it for love, he was desperately trying to sell his work, and he was fortunate that Theo was relatively wealthy and could afford to
support him. Using him as an argument against copyright is ridiculous. If you had your way then he would never have had the dream of making it pay to
cling on to, and I dare say his work would never have existed.
Don't you see? Copyright allows creativity to flourish. If you take away the possibility of reward, you take away the incentive to create anything.
I've stolen nothing with this computer. Everything that exists on the internet belongs to the whole of humanity. I take what is freely
available. There's no scarcity of free entertainment floating around.
Non sequitur. Yes there is plenty of free entertainment on the internet, made available by people like you who are happy to give away their work. Good
on them. Nobody is trying to stop people sharing works that their owners have made freely available. But that doesn't mean that "everything that
exists in the internet belongs to the whole of humanity". If I choose to give away £10 to charity, does that mean that all of your money belongs to
the whole of humanity too? I'll be right over to take it.
I certainly hope they're not proud, I'd have to kill them. Such a disgusting word...
Clearly you don't have children. If you ever do, perhaps you'll be able to appreciate that emotion. It appears you are currently unable to experience
any positive emotions, only negative ones (and, apparently, vaguely psychopathic ones).
Vincent Van Gogh didn't have any children. He still felt pride. He had pride in his work, and in the legacy that he left of a new style of painting.
But he would still have loved to make it pay.
edit on 13-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)