copyright.... 100 years ago

[machinesmith]

wait...we have an IRC channel?! EGAD!

[bvanoudtshoorn]

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

[Saga Musix]

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.

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.

[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.

[uncloned]

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.

[Saga Musix]

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?

[uncloned]

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.

[Louigi Verona]

the 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.

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.

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.

A midi controller doesn't cost much, yes, but have you ever bought a REALLY expensive instrument?

Yes.

[uncloned]

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.

[Louigi Verona]

LV - 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.

I 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.

[uncloned]

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.

[bvanoudtshoorn]

To lighten the mood somewhat, perhaps an apposite Dilbert comic is in order:

[uncloned]

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.

[Louigi Verona]

good 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!

[PPH]

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.

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.