Re: paying the artists: the spike

From: Michael S. Lorrey (
Date: Sat Jul 29 2000 - 14:36:48 MDT

Jason Joel Thompson wrote:
> You just can't easily run
> > a *life* that way if you're one of the sheep begging to be shorn.
> >
> I am an artist. Or rather, I have made and hope to continue to make a
> living in the business of creating content which I have done variously as an
> actor, a director, a graphic artist, et al.
> Mr. Damien Broderick appears to be in a similar position.
> Which points me in the direction of a query:
> Are the primary advocates of intellectual property mostly artists and
> content creators?

I've done engineering, writing, graphic design, and art (painting when
younger, now strictly computer work, though some freehand sketching
still). I do see that while artists want to get paid, it is typically
corporations, IMHO that are most vehement and vocal about IP rights, as
they are acting in their roles of minimizing the risk and maximizing the
value of the stock of their shareholders, but have little to do with
originating art. I very much dislike how the recording industry
virtually enslaves musicians such that even the most successful debut
album for a musician or a band results in less than $100,000 for the
artist after promotional and other costs are calculated (if not just
break even or a loss). The industry has its own group of insiders who,
IMHO, leach the profit out of the art, leaving the artist dependent upon
producing successive albums and endlessly touring to make anything like
the amount of money the record company makes. Only the oldest and
longest lasting artists end up with significant wealth (Beatles, Eagles,
Fleetwood Mac, etc.) after a life of battling to regain and retain
control of their work.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:19 MDT