DevialMar 2
How exactly do you expect artists to get rewarded without some form of copyright ? If everyone can legally reproduce your art, for free, with no consequence, how the fuck is an artist ever supposed to make money of their art ?
Show threadcommieMar 2
The patronage model used to be quite popular.
Show threadDevialMar 2
Ah yes. A fraction of the lucky few artists relying ona single wealthy patron to fully support them is totally a better model, you’re right.
Show threadcommieMar 2
Using a government enforced monopoly to criminalize people sharing art and information is obviously immoral. So pretty much any other option is preferable
Show threadDevial
If you think artists needing to be lucky enough to get a wealthy patron to survive is better than having a legal framework that allows them to sell their art to anyone, then, frankly, you’re an idiot.
Mar 2 at 12:40pmWeb
Show threadMystic Mushroom [Ze/Zir]Mar 2
Do you think those ma and pa artists you’re pretending this applies to actually have the funds to drag out copyright disputes in court for years at a time? You have to be wealthy for that. And even if they do end up doing it they can end up bankrupt even if they win, or they can be forced to drop it because they run out of money to keep fighting. The system you are talking about literally favors the wealthy, and it is so disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
Show threadUnruffled [they/them]Mar 2
Copyright is only a “good idea” in the context of capitalism. Nobody is arguing for going back to feudalism. If everyone had free housing, food and healthcare then art would be an expression of creativity, not a product to be sold.