On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:21 AM, drew Roberts
<zotz@100jamz.com> wrote:
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 10:40:30 Paul Davis wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:29 AM, drew Roberts <
zotz@100jamz.com> wrote:
> > One would presumably not release the work to the public until one had
> > gotten a
> > fair return on one's labour.
>
> that implies only a private audience (and one contract-bound to not "leak"
> the work) until one reached whatever one deemed a fair return.
indiegogo for funding to initial release for some.
that constitutes a private audience, with the twist that it is an audience willing to pay for the work even before it is complete. conceptually, this is no different than the patronage system that has supported artists for centuries. it is still patronage, but just crowd sourced.
Perhaps things will work just fine as they seem to in the fashion industry.
>
> which in turn implies the notion that to get a larger return requires a
> public release that (in what I perceive as your worldview) in turn implies
> abandoment of any ability to restrict access to or use of one's work (even
> though one might still get paid something for it).
In actuality, one already gives up this ability as can be seen from the
constant cries of "piracy" killing the industry.
it is necesssary and important to differentiate between what the law requires and what technology implies. they are quite different. technology has created the scenario in which digital copying is a fact of life, and we must all deal with that. copyright (and other related) law did not create that scenario and at present is powerless to prevent it.
> effectively, you're arguing for "if you don't have a rich patron and you
> expect the public to pay for your work, you must give up any control over
> your work, in the hope that the public will pay you for it anyway".
Please, this is really not the case. Although it is the fear.
in your scenario, you cannot release to the public without giving up control of your work. so how is this not the case?
>
> given that most rich patrons want/need public distribution of the work you
> do for them (think hollywood), i have a hard time understanding how this is
> not tantamount to saying "if you want to get paid anything for your work,
> you must give up all control over it".
Why should it be impossible for a movie to earn back its real costs in the
opening weekend?
not the movie! the score, or the costume design, or the FX used in the 7th scene. did cameron pay me enough for the score before it came out? maybe, maybe not. but now that the movie is in public release (in your scenario), i've lost all control over my work, so any income i can derive from it now is basically fortuitous.
Besides, if the only way for the current model to continue is to destroy
freedom and democracy, I know whcih I want to keep.
i'm not arguing for the current model. but i'm certainly arguing against a model where public release implies loss of all control over one's work.
--p