(no title)
CptFribble | 1 year ago
a world without copyright means those with the largest advertising budgets will reap nearly all the rewards from new IP created by small artists. BigCorp Inc. can just sit around and wait for talented musicians to post something interesting on soundcloud, for example, then just have their in-house people copy it and push it out to radio and streaming platforms via their massive ad budgets and favorable relationships for getting new material onto the waves immediately. meanwhile the original artist gets nothing.
the position of advocating against all copyright protections at all only makes sense for people who are already wealthy enough that they don't need proceeds from their art to survive.
brookst|1 year ago
If copyright disappeared altogether, most smaller artists would be just fine because they have loyal fans and adjacent monetization strategies.
See: Grateful Dead. They did just fine despite encouraging infringement of IP.
IMO copyright mostly serves to protect the very biggest artists and companies, not the small ones.
gmokki|1 year ago
And saying that bands currently make more money from touring kind of proves the point. They get too low % cut of music sales.
appreciatorBus|1 year ago
This makes it sound like the majority of people produce more content than they consume.
The reality is that 99.99999% of people do not produce "art", let alone with the intention of living of it.
Whatever harms you might envision for the tiny minority who do want to try living off copyright, those concerns are dwarfed by the benefits for the rest of us.
Further, not many people who are serious about reform are literally "advocating against all copyright" A reform that simply curbed the duration to something less insane than 150 years would resolve much of what makes copyright bad, even if it continued to exist.