Artists Should Be Compensated For Their Work

Re:Artists Should Be Compensated For Their Work by tptacek on Friday September 11, 2009 @01:00PM (#817677)

If I produce a buggy whip, put it on a store shelf, and demand $75,000 for it, you are entitled not to pay for it. You are not entitled to take it.

If I produce a Feist album, put it on a store shelf, and demand $15 for it, you are entitled --- in fact, advised --- not to pay for it. But you are also not entitled to copy it.

I do not understand what is so hard to understand about this situation. The music labels suck. A lot of artists suck. When something sucks, you don't do business with it. You get no other rights and privileges. They can charge $15 or $75,000. They can give you FLAC files or .EXEs that play music by hijacking the scheduler loop in your kernel. Your options: (1) agree to their terms, or (2) stay away from them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Artists Should Be Compensated For Their Work by jerf on Friday September 11, 2009 @02:43PM (#817848)

I agree. What I posted was not about that, merely the idea that merely by being arty, we are required to support it. It's a popular idea, but I don't think it stands up to clear thinking.

If you do produce a buggy whip and price it for $75,000, nobody is entitled to thereby take it, but, well, while you have every right to whine about how nobody values it, I have every right to call that a terrible argument.

[ Parent | on HN ]