|
| Authored by: Wol on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:24 PM EDT |
Oddly enough, I have to say history disagrees with you.
Until we had the enlightened approach of the Americans to copyright (there's
only a *little* sarcasm there, the ideal is great, the reality less so ...) most
creativity was sponsored by people with inherited wealth.
Look at pretty much all the greats of the 18th and 17th centuries - Bach,
Beethoven, Mozart ... (I'm naming musicians because they're who I'm familiar
with). Dickens was 19th century - things were changing then ...
(And then we have Sir Thomas Beecham, of Beechams pills fame, who inherited the
wealth and decided to compose and conduct.)
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 10:40 PM EDT |
"The question is, how to arrange it so that
artists can afford to create. But just
giving it away isn't really a solution, if
you care about fostering the arts."
Sure, artists need to be paid for their work. But it doesn't
necessarily mean that people have to pay for each digital
copy. Artists could be supported by governments or
universities, private foundations, etc.
I can easily see how GPL software could be funded by those
who need to see a feature implemented, once the core program
reaches a critical mass. This is already the case with the
Linux kernel.
For novels, music, etc., funding isn't so clear if all
copying were legalized. It might fall back to government
grants, private foundations, and fundraising, as with
classical music currently.
I don't know if any of this would work, but at least I
believe that "pay per copy" is not the only imaginable way
to reimburse authors and artists.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
