How many great artist[1] make a lot of money from their work while they are alive? How many make a lot of money for their label (alone, or in aggregate)?
I'm not afraid of artists stopping to create, and I'm not too terrified of a future without projects like the Lord of the Rings-films (note that the books were a work of passion, and not a main source of income -- which might be considered a bad thing, but also illustrates that people will do what can -- as long as they have some free time at their disposal). Or without TV shows like "(American) Idol".
There's an aspect of being dependent on commercial success that tends to shape what art is made -- a sinister form of self censorship. So it is not just the business model that is under attack -- but also the constraints under which artists work. People will disagree if this is a good or bad thing -- but it should probably be a part of the debate (who should have the resources to create art, and what art should they be making? Do we really think the invisible hand is the best judge of what makes good visual art?).
[1] Great art and great artists is of course highly subjective. I'm thinking of people like Townes Van Zandt, Phil Ochs, or various blues/jazz legends -- people generally highly regarded in their field, but that in spite of having published through established channels have not had commercial "success".
It's never been easy to make a living as an artist, and I agree that money isn't and probably shouldn't be the major motivator of good art.
But I fail to see how either of those things are really relevant to my argument.
Be clear: what I'm arguing against is the idea that industrial-scale mass piracy is actually a social good. I'm arguing against people like the "Pirate Party," etc. Conversely I am arguing that building a click mill "portal" on the backs of other peoples' work (like TPB) is at the very least a dick move even if it's not actually illegal.
Pulling more money out of the creative economy is only going to make things worse for artists.
I also disagree about the value of things like the LoTR films, etc. While these are to some extent purely profit-driven, they serve as vehicles of employment for vast numbers of creative professionals who use them to hone their craft. It's blockbusters like this that pay for the cool indie art flicks, and that create careers for the people who make such things "on the side." They also drive massive advancements in the technology and technique of film-making, and these make it easier and cheaper for indie art flicks to get made. I'd say the same thing about pop music-- it supports a vast technical infrastructure of music making, recording, editing, and distribution that indie acts can tap into and use. Without all that money going in at the top, you wouldn't have such a massive market for instruments, fuzz boxes, production software, synths, etc.
Freemium and "pay what you want" can work in some cases, and some artists have made it work, but my point is that it's the artist's choice what model they want to use. Making that choice for them and then preaching about how you've got the right to do so because your "free" views are morally superior is just assholery. If an artist doesn't want their work distributed in that way, doing so is saying you don't give a damn about them.
I'm an artist who does not earn a living via art, but grew up pirating music and movies.
I grew up having access to the entire canon of film, books, comics, culture. That was a huge part of my formative experience. I want my kids to have that. I don't want my kids to be limited to what's on Netflix because of licensing agreements.
I am a big believer in Kopimi. I also love the idea of torrent nodes and bitcoin nodes and other P2P modes as a metaphor for holography and as a metaphor for knowledge as a whole -- each node contains within it an image of the whole swarm.The companies who make a profit from the works of artists and use legal means to restrict this model are shortsighted, stupid, and outright dangerous to soceity.
That said, I try to only consume works that are public domain and creative commons. It's not easy, and I frequently break this "soft boycott" not just out of lack of will, but also because fair use is my right and I intend on excercising it.
We've lost a majority of the early silent films produced in Hollywood. The myth of the internet as a permanent archive persists, and I can't figure out why. I believe that copyright activists and the Pirate Party are doing a net force for good in archiving our culture.
Without all that money going in at the top, people would be using free recording tools like Ardour.
My philosophy: Don't be a child. If an artist wants to restrict your consumption, it's not art, it's commerce. If you're old enough to have disposable income, you are old enough to support CC and PD works. Anything less, and you need to go listen to some more preaching.
Nice point on commercial success driving a form of self censorship. I'm big on independant media, but I have a huge respect for those who run established brands and are able to turn a profit in media.
Some mainstream artists do a very good job rewarding those who are willing to delve deeply into music.
With any form of art, but especially music, I believe it's the artists job to take us from the familiar, to the unfamiliar, and back to the familiar. My ideal artform is a massively popular avant-garde movement, but that's more of a platonic ideal than anything else.
