Dr_Watso
Platinum Member
Gold star! Very good!Artists develop art.
Well, no. Creativity and creative craft doesn't always require "honing". In some cases, there's creativity in lack of traditional training, time or "honing". Have you studied art very much? Part of why it's hard to determine the monetary value of art is that it's very subjective. When it was more difficult to distribute content, it had a higher value objectively based on the physical medium it was stored, transported, retailed and experienced on.They spend many years honing their craft.
Nobody is forcing them to do anything, but at the same time, the universe doesn't owe them or anyone else jack squat. While one person may feel a line across a white canvas is genius art and should be sold for a million bucks, the next guy to come along, you'd have to pay him to take it out to the trash. You can try to assign value to something, but you might be wrong. Only the actual consumers decide the actual value of anything. This is especially true in today's world where control of the general population and information flow is so impossible. Traditional journalism, marketing, retail... It's all changing.They shouldn't be forced to sell t-shirts or use a virtual begging bowl to get paid
Why? Are they the ones building, maintaining, supporting and managing a giant open content delivery platform allowing the media(art?) to be shared and experienced where it most likely would not have been previous? All they did was arrange some notes and claim the arrangement as "theirs". As I pointed out, that could be anyone from a toddler with a bongo, to a master composer with a full orchestra.Plenty of money is changing hands due to their art. Most of that money belongs to them.
The biggest issue is the fact that google will allow end users to upload content and then make money from it. This sounds good, except as you're so rapt to remind, quite often, people will just take another person's material and put it up to make money from. The very structure of paying people for what they upload changes things in a bad way and encourages them to steal popular works for direct, individual profit. Forget google making money from their distro platform, that's just deliberate theft and profit by an individual.
At this point the ship has sailed, and even though I worry it's not realistic, I think that these people are the ones who should be the recipients of lawsuits, absolutely NOT the 80 year old grandmas or end users who are simply listening to music online, transferring data over a content platform.
My ideal would be going back to when it was just a media sharing site. People uploaded music because they loved the music and wanted to share it, not because they made cash. I've found so much new music through youtube that I never would have experienced at all based on the old distribution models where executives decided what was cool rather than open user sharing and input. I've spent real money on real goods, shows, and music for bands I found on youtube rabbit hole binges. Lots of it.
Last edited: