[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moxie Mezcal

I know a ton of brilliant local artists, musicians, writers, and film makers who create realizing all too well that they probably won't ever make a living solely off of their art. They do things like teaching, graphic design, editing, work-for-hire, or holding down day jobs to pay the bills; they make art out of passion. And I'm not talking about college dropouts or starry-eyed neophytes, I'm talking about people who have been doing this for decades.

Every year we have a indie film festival that draws literally hundreds of movies from around the world. It's not Sundance or Cannes, 99.9% won't make it into theaters or even a wide DVD release. And every year I go and talk to the film makers, some of the most crazy, brilliant, adventurous people I've ever met, and they all say the same thing - it's not about money, it's about doing what you love and sharing it with people, making human connections.

That's terrific.

And all those films are covered by copyright whether they make any money from them or not.

Originally Posted by Moxie Mezcal

There are a lot more examples of classic artists who continued to create despite going unrecognized in their lifetime, Van Gogh being another of the most oft-cited that springs to mind.

The reactionary, sky-is-falling "without financial incentive, all art would disappear" arguments always strike me as funny because they seem to assume that creativity came into existence with the advent of capitalism.

An artist being able to make a living solely from creating the art that they wanted is actually a relatively new phenomenon as far as human history goes. Go to any non-modern art museum in the world and count the number of commissioned portraits of royalty and aristocrats if you think otherwise. Or hop on wikipedia and see how many famous authors relied on teaching, journalism, or criticism to make ends meet.

I am not one who argues all art will cease with the abolition of copyright as we know it. I agree that art will continue.

What I disagree with is the attitude that simply because art will continue that makes it ok to exploit those artists without compensation.

Originally Posted by Moxie Mezcal

This doesn't address the moral issues involved in piracy of course. This is just to dispel the myth that the end of copyright-as-we-know-it would mean the end of art. It would only be the end of the current corporate paradigm of commoditizing art. But if you are really that concerned about the corporations' well-being, I wouldn't worry too much. I have enough faith in capitalism that I'm confident someone would be able to dream up a new scheme for financially exploiting both artist and audience soon enough.

The moral question isn't something I think you'll get far debating, it's just about personal values. I personally take free art to try something new and regularly pay for art from creators that I know I like. Everyone's entitled to their own beliefs though, even though suggesting filesharing is a capital offense and akin to eating babies is I think going a little far in anyone's bookbut if that's how you really feel then more power to you.

Good to see the hyperbole is alive and well. I'm not aware of anyone having claimed "file-sharing" is a capital offence akin to eating babies.

As you say, your arguments, cogent and well put as they are, do not address the moral issue. Like you say, debating that on a forum board wont get anyone very far. In fact it is clearly something that most who advocate "file-sharing" do not wish to address.

Originally Posted by Moxie Mezcal

I personally take more moral issue with an author who believes it's more important to have money in his pocket than to have a copy of his book in the reader's hands. I'd also consider morally-suspect any artists who say they'd stop creating if they couldn't make a living off it. But that's just me.

The old "money is bad, mmmkay" argument.

I'm at a loss to underestand how, if someone creates a work of art and would like to make money from their efforts, that is more morally suspect than if another person simply comes in and decides they will acquire access to the creators efforts without any compensation at all to the creator. In any other field of endeavour that attitude would be laughable.

I guess the consumers rights simply trump the creators rights. Of course that must be because "money is bad, mmmmkay!"

Cheers,
PKFFW