Let's see if this gets any play...

[sen_no_ongaku]

Proposal: Art should be created without the expectation of material compensation.

True or false?

Commonplace attitude or not?



[EDIT: This is not intended to imply that something created for with such an expectation cannot be art, though I may propose that sometime later.]

Comments

Re: while we're on the subject of P2P

[shgb.livejournal.com]

I agree on all points.

The only thing I disagree on, truthfully, is the absolute moral judgement that downloading a track of a P2P network is exactly the same as stealing a twinky. If I steal a twinky, the store can't sell that twinky again. If I download a track of Kazaa the artist hasn't lost anything until I decide that I really like the song and I'd rather keep listening to my MP3 instead of buying the CD (or single track off iTunes or whatever).

Re: while we're on the subject of P2P

[fairoriana.livejournal.com]

Downloading something and never paying for it is saying that the artist does not deserve compensation for the artistic product you are enjoying. If it's just a matter of *when* you buy it, then it doesn't matter. But instead it's a matter of *if* you buy it. Does an artist then not deserve compensation for a piece you listened to several times, but finally decided wasn't worth 99c to you?

Re: while we're on the subject of P2P

[shgb.livejournal.com]

Does an artist then not deserve compensation for a piece you listened to several times, but finally decided wasn't worth 99c to you?

If I could buy all of the music I was considering on iTunes for 99c a song, I would. But I can't, because iTunes has a pretty crappy selection of the music I like.

But to answer your question, certainly, if I like a song enough to listen to it "several times", then yes, the artist should be compensated for providing me that entertainment. Honestly, if the song is crap, I'm not going to listen to it several times. I'm going to listen to it once or twice and then delete it.

Re: while we're on the subject of P2P

[sen-no-ongaku.livejournal.com]

I think the issue I have is if an artist has had *no say* in whether or not to make his/her/their work available on a P2P network. I imagine that there are quite a few musicians and such who use such networks to advertise their music.

----

While information is potentially infinitely reproducible and a Twinkie is not, you are still taking something whose owner has not explicitly allowed you to. The absence of material loss is not justification.

Re: while we're on the subject of P2P

[shgb.livejournal.com]

actually, I argued a very similar position during a Slashdot bashing of Metallica around the time Lars delivered his famous list of "users-to-ban" to Napster.