Oh jeepers! Without the use of IP protection, wouldn’t recording artists be unable to meet the high costs of producing an album?
Gosh.
Oh jeepers! Without the use of IP protection, wouldn’t recording artists be unable to meet the high costs of producing an album?
Gosh.
As I’ve been saying for years, “Sell music, not copies!” http://culturalliberty.org/blog/index.php?id=251
There are uses of intellectual property other than for music, you know.
So how do the principles differ as applied to other cases?
They might require massively more funding, than Kickstarter has ever produced.
First it was “Copyright is the only way an artist can be paid for their work” then “Amateurs might get paid a little via the web” then “A few really well known artists might be able to get significant funding via Kickstarter et al” then it’s “But it’ll never cope with the billions ‘required’ by some industries” and no doubt it’ll eventually be “But copyright was better, because 99% of revenue ended up with deserving corporations and their lawyers rather than the artist”.
Something tells me scineram’s concern is not for artists, but for the intermediaries and their monopoly profits.
And I include within ‘artists’ all those involved in producing intellectual work, whatever kind, software, movies, etc.