copyright.... 100 years ago

[uncloned]

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/

[Harbinger]

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!!

[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.

[PPH]

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.

[PPH]

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.

[Louigi Verona]

It 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.

[bvanoudtshoorn]

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.

[Sam_Zen]

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.

[uncloned]

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.

[Louigi Verona]

inability 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.

[bvanoudtshoorn]

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.

[Louigi Verona]

depended 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.

If 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.

it'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.

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

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.

[bvanoudtshoorn]

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.

[Louigi Verona]

:lol:

OT: pity we did not chat in the irc. I was there but had to go to sleep as it was very late.

[bvanoudtshoorn]

OT: Yeah. I've been lurking there all day here at work, but there's been no activity.