Originally posted by thedigirati
reply to post by TarzanBeta
a "real" job makes a real product, one you can take away and never get back, IP is not a real product as in real estate.
But yet you go and work for pieces of paper, or credits (depending on your fancy). And then you go and exchange those things that possess imaginary
value in for things that you deem worthy of being called products.
So you working for imaginary money.
Visual art is sold in many forms. Many tangible forms at that. The files can also be licensed online. Does the visual artist not put a lot of
effort into their work (if they are good)?
And so the sonic artists does not have the exact same canvas with which they can work.
So then hear this:
Why are you not complaining about renters? Because one may rent for 10 years, and pay more than the apartment is worth, and still not retain rights
to that building. But they only merely borrow the space. That land belongs to the land owner. Not that the land was created by the land owner, but
the work that has been done on the land and all that pertain to that land belong to the owner. So therefore, musicians do not own sound, but rather,
we own the product of that sound, how we moved it, how we mixed it, how we portray it.
It is not a bad thing if an artist wants their due rent. Like you said, it's hard to make music a physical product you can pass back and forth
But then, get in your car. Blast your radio. Then step outside of your car and shut the door. Is the sound muffled? Interesting. You're standing
in the "shadow of sound"; the shadow of the sound passing through the door, just like if light was shone on the car, and left a shadow. So
therefore, sound is three dimensional, it is physical, it is real.
Because it can be duplicated, all of a sudden, it is worthless?
But you see, good artists can also replicate antique paintings. But are they worth as much as the original? Are they not copies? Do you still pay
for the work? Yes. Do you pay for rights to the master? No.
Or better yet!
Why do you have to keep paying for vegetables? I mean, why don't you just buy the seeds? And eat only what you make? Why do you keep having to go
back and pay someone for cucumbers over and over and over?
It's the same cucumber. IT's being replicated. But you keep taking in their cucumbers. You're taking up time and energy.
And so every time a song is played, time and energy are used. Space that could have been used by something else. As well, know you not that music is
not just a product, but is a means of selling the product as well? You see, music is designed to stir up emotion and to inspire. Now so therefore
you understand also, that for every time an entity chooses to use that music for commercial purpose, and they profit from that purpose every-time,
every-time they profited from that purpose, so should the artist, because it is their art performing the work. Do you not see that?
Now I think there is nothing wrong with understanding the industry has changed in many ways. Artists are beginning to learn that we sell tickets, and
merchandise, and whatever have you.
And that merchandise is made by somebody, and somebody's livelihood is to make T-shirts and cases, and totes, and mugs, and all that stuff. And
somebody's livelihood is to clean the stadiums, maintain the stadiums, to run concessions, to grow the food that ends up in concessions, and so forth
and so forth.
And so many profit from the work of an artist that you claim is "royalty".
Just because some artists have a rotten attitude, or you think that someone is getting unduly paid, remember; people are willing to pay for something
as much as it is worth to them. And what people will pay for, that they will get.
So therefore, if someone wants to license our songs for any reason, especially commercial reasons, then they pay for that.
How can you not understand?