• TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    Cool. Name one. A specific one that we can directly reference, where they themselves can make that claim. Not a secondary source, but a primary one. And specifically, not the production companies either, keeping in mind that the argument that I’m making is that copyright law, was intended to protect those who control the means of production and the production system itself. Not the artists.

    The artists I know, and I know several. They make their money the way almost all people make money, by contracting for their time and services, or through selling tickets and merchandise, and through patreon subscriptions: in other words, the way artists and creatives have always made their money. The “product” in the sense of their music or art being a product, is given away practically for free. In fact, actually for free in the case of the most successful artists I know personally. If they didn’t give this “product” of their creativity away for free, they would not be able to survive.

    There is practically 0 revenue through copyright. Production companies like Universal make money through copyright. Copyright was also built, and historically based intended for, and is currently used for, the protection of production systems: not artists.

    • Leavingoldhabits@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      I don’t know where you are, but here in Norway, people tend to get paid when their work is used for commercial or entertainment purposes.

      Of course, very few can live off of royalties alone, but a lot of artists get a considerable amount income from their previous works.

      (Edited in total, I matched the anger I felt from what I was answering to, and decided to moderate)