this is rich with irony - the record companies were fighting against paying royalties and were called.... pirates....
http://www.thepublicdomain.org/2009/07/17/were-we-smarter-100-years-ago/
WOW!! :shock:
There are not too many times when "rich with irony" is a GROSS understatement. But that's exactly what it is here!!
Irony definitely! Perhaps bordering on hypocrisy. I think the next time someone gets sued by the record companies they should present this tidbit of info!
Times have changed and yet they haven't.
Excellent gold nugget, uncloned!!
Good article. Although once again I am highly puzzled why would copyright be seen as an incentive to create. this is really one of the false presumptions of the businesses and law of the 20-th century. And I suspect it comes out of the materialistic view on the world.
I read about that once. Do you know why movie companies established in Hollywood. Because this way they could escape Thomas Edison's patents. It was more difficult to people in the East to enforce the patents on companies that were in LA.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"Good article. Although once again I am highly puzzled why would copyright be seen as an incentive to create. this is really one of the false presumptions of the businesses and law of the 20-th century. And I suspect it comes out of the materialistic view on the world.
It is an incentive because you can make a lot of money out of it. That's obvious. What is not obvious is that it is the only incentive (it is not, and you and me are proof). Copyright didn't exist in Mozart's time. He worked by commission. He made a lot of money with his music, though he spent it fast and died poor.
QuoteIt is an incentive because you can make a lot of money out of it.
Making money is not an incentive to do art - making money is an incentive to do business. In any times - including these - art doesn't bring you much money, in most cases.
So saying that money is any incentive at all in art is actually misplacing art with business in the minds of people. Because today what is called art is actually just business.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"Making money is not an incentive to do art - making money is an incentive to do business. In any times - including these - art doesn't bring you much money, in most cases.
I disagree, inasmuch as an
inability to make money from your art is a
disincentive to do your art. In other words, even though an artist might not be motivated by the thought of garnering great riches, if they are unable to live comfortably through their art, then they may be motivated to
not do their art.
I'm living on welfare for some decades now, because I can't make money with my work.
But this was never a reason to stop making art.
For my part not making money from music has not stopped me from composing. I have worked as a chemist in order to support myself so I may compose music. I was lucky in having a talent in two fields. I tried teaching guitar but it was a terrible experience for me and of course was poorly paid.
However.... the path, just before I got married, I saw to possibly make it as a rock n roll artist was... disturbing. I don't think I could sell out like that. And I look at people performing the same songs over and over again for their entire life and wonder if they feel hollow. I know that I would.
Quoteinability to make money from your art is a disincentive to do your art
Not for me. In fact, I consider my job to be supporting what I do in art - and what I consider to be most important stuff.
Also, I do not see how having money helps you do art. You do not need a lot of money to play an instrument - just enough money to buy one once. Managing a job in parallel enough to feed yourself is fairly easy and all artists throughout human history managed it.
Well, I just know that if I depended solely on my music for income, and I couldn't make enough money doing it, I wouldn't stop writing music, but I would certainly have to do something else to support it. I happen to enjoy my work, but even if I didn't, I would continue to do it to facilitate my art.
I don't necessarily agree that you don't need much money to be a musician: as musicians improve, they tend to require better instruments -- the world's greatest virtuoso isn't going to use a Suzuki violin, after all. If you're a digital musician, then you need to pay for hardware and software (and upgrades).
I think perhaps we're talking at cross purposes, though: by saying that the inability to make money from your art is a disincentive, I meant that a) it's easy to become dispirited if your passion cannot fund your life; and b) if you can't make money from your art sufficient to support yourself and your family, you will necessarily have to sacrifice some part of your art to be able to manage financially.
If I did nothing but write music all day, I'd be a much better muso than I am now. But I can't afford to do that.
Quotedepended solely on my music for income
Why should that be the case? Why is using, say, music as a source of income is such a sweet goal at all? I know it doesn't attract me.
QuoteIf you're a digital musician, then you need to pay for hardware and software (and upgrades).
It depends on the musician. All of this chasing upgrades is not essential. Moreover, I personally believe that it disrupts the creative process, all these innovations. A musician should find "his thing" and master it. Despite the common belief, mastering something is not a matter of cool tools, it is a matter of devotion and time. Sometimes truly mastering an instrument or a style of composing takes a lifetime.
Quoteit's easy to become dispirited if your passion cannot fund your life
This is where I differ, I guess. If I set a goal to fund my life with my art, then yes, that would be the case. But to me such goal is uninteresting. All I need is an opportunity to do art.
Quoteif you can't make money from your art sufficient to support yourself and your family, you will necessarily have to sacrifice some part of your art to be able to manage financially
You know, this is interesting. it is true, what you say. But I found that priorities mean a lot. I've seen people stop doing music because they have to "provide food" for a family. For some time I thought this to be an inevitable sacrifice that perhaps one day I will have to make. But as time passed, I saw that in some cases my day job is even more demanding then the job of those people, and yet I manage to write albums of music, do software, write stories, come up with board games and ideas.
I also have to "make a living" for me and my fiancée, to pay the rent for the apartment, all that stuff. But I chose to devote all my free time to my projects - and it is not that hard to do. And I suspect that raising children is also manageable without throwing all your projects and music away.
So, from my experience I can say this - if you want to do music, nothing can stop you. I am working in a serious international company full day and yet I manage to do both the job work and lead several of my own projects without much difficulty. It is really a matter of priorities.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"So, from my experience I can say this - if you want to do music, nothing can stop you. I am working in a serious international company full day and yet I manage to do both the job work and lead several of my own projects without much difficulty. It is really a matter of priorities.
You know, I really think that we're both kinda getting at a similar thing from different angles. :) I agree with a lot of what you say. :D
:lol:
OT: pity we did not chat in the irc. I was there but had to go to sleep as it was very late.
OT: Yeah. I've been lurking there all day here at work, but there's been no activity. :P
wait...we have an IRC channel?! EGAD!
We sure do! And because people don't know about it, I made a post about all of the websites and communications directly related to ModPlug and OpenMPT here (http://forum.openmpt.org/index.php?msg=26391.0#msg26391)
QuoteAlso, I do not see how having money helps you do art. You do not need a lot of money to play an instrument - just enough money to buy one once. Managing a job in parallel enough to feed yourself is fairly easy and all artists throughout human history managed it.
You don't seem to be an artist who loves to play are with new toys all the time... and Hardware toys are not free.
Your impressions are not correct. I am not only buying acoustic instruments all the time, I am actually buying hardware as well.
I do not see, however, how paying for hardware has anything to do with making a living out of art.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"Your impressions are not correct. I am not only buying acoustic instruments all the time, I am actually buying hardware as well.
I do not see, however, how paying for hardware has anything to do with making a living out of art.
LV - good quality instruments of any kind costs lots of money.
Good quality samples and software cost lots of money (legally) .
It is simply a fact.
It is also a fact that the more talent and physical ability you have the more likely you are to be able to support yourself doing music. However... only the very best can work on what
they want to work on and still make money. Most people in the arts are forced to make product at some level instead of art.
Exactly. And good quality samples are sure not free, and if I made any super high quality samples I sure wouldn't give them to everyone for free, because this is not art, but hard work. A midi controller doesn't cost much, yes, but have you ever bought a REALLY expensive instrument?
speaking of expensive instruments...
a music store by me has an electric 12 string that has action better than my Fender Mustang - its semi hollow body and plays sooooo sweetly....
I lust after it!
and it cost $1,200...... bummer.
But all the guitar gods and keyboard wizards have instruments of this quality and better. Of course they are the one's making money from music. (can't say necessarily art..)
The irony is if you play really good you can afford instruments that are easier to play and sound better. When you start out you struggle with cheaper and less well made instruments.
Quotethe more likely you are to be able to support yourself doing music
Why aim to support yourself doing art? Is this the ultimate goal? That's what I'm talking about.
QuoteLV - good quality instruments of any kind costs lots of money.
Good quality samples and software cost lots of money (legally) .
It is simply a fact.
Yes, I understand that and have paid my share of money for good samples. Question is - what does it have to do with profiting from doing art? I never made profit doing art and yet I managed to buy samples and instruments. I just can't see the connection.
QuoteA midi controller doesn't cost much, yes, but have you ever bought a REALLY expensive instrument?
Yes.
LV - are you going to say you'd rather program for a living instead of make music and music apps for a living?
I think most people here would rather do music for a living if they didn't have to compromise their art.
And I'm not saying its a goal. Actually I think it is a desire/dream/wish.
QuoteLV - are you going to say you'd rather program for a living instead of make music and music apps for a living?
What I would rather do hardly matters in the more long term question of incentive to create. What I am trying to say is that my goal is to be able to do my projects. Whether making a living out of it will help the matter or, on the contrary, disrupt it - is an arguable question. And this is what I am trying to say - that the wish of trying to profit from you art is far from being obvious and universally good. And that I personally do not quite understand how it connects with an incentive to create.
Another interesting thing to note is the stereotype today - that musicians get a lot of money. And so profiting from your art will give you enough to buy expensive equipment. But in real non-MTV life musicians actually make less money than your average office worker. And being a full time musician would only make your chances of being able to afford things less. No?
As for time, I have addressed this issue in the topic above. It comes from my experience. And it is a matter of priorities. And often your priorities will shape life around you in ways that would facilitate your art.
In other words, if you want to be a musician, profiting from it is not a necessity and in many individual cases would actually be a disruption.
QuoteI think most people here would rather do music for a living if they didn't have to compromise their art.
Yes, maybe this is a preference for some people. It has nothing to do with necessity though - that mythical necessity upon which the whole copyright argument lies.
I do not wish to be perceived as a person who tries to put forth arguments that shine with originality and anti-stereotypism. But having studied the question and learning from personal experience as an artist, I think that copyright is not an incentive at all and might only be acceptable as a limited industrial regulation. It has some sense in economics in certain specific situations which deal with publication of physical objects, like paper books. Copyright has nothing to do with authors and their incentives. Years of copyright have actually shown that this artificial idea is not as helpful as it was sought to be - in fact, countries with powerful copyright law suffer from many lawsuits and not many good books and music. The authors are just too busy in courts.
good grief - I'm not talking about copyright.
I create regardless of what I have at hand or if I have an audience or not. I consider it a sonic version of a journal / diary.
Most musicians I know who play real shows hold down at least one other job than playing music.
To lighten the mood somewhat, perhaps an apposite Dilbert comic is in order:
(http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/00000/6000/900/6927/6927.strip.print.gif)
nice one Barry :-)
What is missing is that popular artists make lots of money playing shows.
Though for art I think the tipping model could work if all artists were hobbyist until supported by general consensus of the public. I think the 19th century model of artist as hero is outdated and should be replaced by the Andy Warhol 15 minutes of fame model that the internet empowers all of us to have.
Quotegood grief - I'm not talking about copyright.
I just brought it up because the copyright argument is closely connected to what we were discussing. We were not arguing about anything, were we? =)
Anyway, good morning everybody. After days of hot weather here in Moscow we finally had rain. It is great to live with cool air around you!
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"Quoteinability to make money from your art is a disincentive to do your art
Not for me. In fact, I consider my job to be supporting what I do in art - and what I consider to be most important stuff.
Also, I do not see how having money helps you do art. You do not need a lot of money to play an instrument - just enough money to buy one once. Managing a job in parallel enough to feed yourself is fairly easy and all artists throughout human history managed it.
If you could make money from your art, you wouldn't need your job. You would probably produce more works of art. And the fact that money is not an incentive for you doesn't mean it's not an incentive for others.
This: " consider my job to be supporting what I do in art"
contradicts this:
"Also, I do not see how having money helps you do art."
I can see you have strong feelings about the subject. And I mostly agree with you. But it doesn't help to think about the subject if you don't see the point in other people's arguments. You must understand them to discuss them.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"QuoteLV - are you going to say you'd rather program for a living instead of make music and music apps for a living?
What I would rather do hardly matters in the more long term question of incentive to create. What I am trying to say is that my goal is to be able to do my projects. Whether making a living out of it will help the matter or, on the contrary, disrupt it - is an arguable question. And this is what I am trying to say - that the wish of trying to profit from you art is far from being obvious and universally good. And that I personally do not quite understand how it connects with an incentive to create.
Another interesting thing to note is the stereotype today - that musicians get a lot of money. And so profiting from your art will give you enough to buy expensive equipment. But in real non-MTV life musicians actually make less money than your average office worker. And being a full time musician would only make your chances of being able to afford things less. No?
As for time, I have addressed this issue in the topic above. It comes from my experience. And it is a matter of priorities. And often your priorities will shape life around you in ways that would facilitate your art.
In other words, if you want to be a musician, profiting from it is not a necessity and in many individual cases would actually be a disruption.
QuoteI think most people here would rather do music for a living if they didn't have to compromise their art.
Yes, maybe this is a preference for some people. It has nothing to do with necessity though - that mythical necessity upon which the whole copyright argument lies.
I do not wish to be perceived as a person who tries to put forth arguments that shine with originality and anti-stereotypism. But having studied the question and learning from personal experience as an artist, I think that copyright is not an incentive at all and might only be acceptable as a limited industrial regulation. It has some sense in economics in certain specific situations which deal with publication of physical objects, like paper books. Copyright has nothing to do with authors and their incentives. Years of copyright have actually shown that this artificial idea is not as helpful as it was sought to be - in fact, countries with powerful copyright law suffer from many lawsuits and not many good books and music. The authors are just too busy in courts.
I agree with at least the vast majority of this.
QuoteIf you could make money from your art, you wouldn't need your job. You would probably produce more works of art.
This could be the case. Then again - I do not feel the lack of time. And I do not want to produce more. I am quite happy with the amount of things I do now - in fact, if I am left with limitless time, it really defeats my discipline and vacations and times in between jobs are usually the most unproductive periods of my creative life.
QuoteAnd the fact that money is not an incentive for you doesn't mean it's not an incentive for others.
Money shouldn't be an incentive to do art just like money shouldn't be an incentive to be a doctor or a priest. Art is not craft like, say, making chairs. It is a much more delicate activity that directly influences and touches upon people's souls. I do believe that the obviousness of such an influence is generally not noticed in our modern society.
QuoteThis: " consider my job to be supporting what I do in art"
contradicts this:
"Also, I do not see how having money helps you do art."
Well, those are two different contexts. In the first phrase I was speaking about priorities and that one can use his job to get money to do art if he really needs it.
The second phrase should not be perceived in an absolute sense. We of course all require money in our society to survive - to eat, have food and a place to live. What I meant is that to do art you do not need any special profits.
I hope I cleared my views on this matter a bit =)