“How Should Artists Get Paid?” Isn’t a Question, it’s an Insult

[shamu726]

Throughout the debate on sharing culture and knowledge in violation of the copyright monopoly, one question keeps popping up. But it’s not a question as much as an insult to all artists.

We’ve all heard the objection to sharing culture and knowledge many times – “How will the artists get paid, if you manufacture copies of their creations without paying them?”

This question is delusional on so many levels I’ve lost count.

First, artists that are copied do get paid, only not by a per-copy sale but in other ways. I encourage copying of my leadership handbook Swarmwise, for example, because I know the book promotes other avenues of income. The average income for musicians has risen 114% since people started sharing culture online on a large-scale, according to a Norwegian study. Other studies agree with this observation.

Second, even if they didn’t get paid, people who share still don’t carry any kind of responsibility for the business models of other entrepreneurs. Because that’s what artists are once they go plinking their guitar in a kitchen looking for sales: entrepreneurs. Same rules apply to those entrepreneurs as to every other entrepreneur on the planet: nobody owes an entrepreneur a sale, you have to offer something which somebody else wants to buy. Wants. To. Buy. No excuses, nothing deserved, just business.

Third, we don’t live in a planned economy. Nobody is held accountable to the question of where somebody’s next paycheck is going to come from except that very person. In Soviet Russia, you could tell Vladimir Sklyarov that his guitar plinking was highly artistic (meaning nobody liked it) and that his next paycheck would therefore come from the Bureau of Incomprehensible Arts. But we don’t live in a planned economy, we live in a market economy. Everybody is responsible for their own paycheck – of finding a way to make money by providing value that somebody else wants to pay for. Wants. To. Pay. For. No excuses, nothing deserved.

Fourth, even if this set of entrepreneurs magically deserved money despite not making any sales, control of what people share between them can still not be achieved without dismantling the secrecy of correspondence, monitoring every word communicated – and fundamental liberties always go before anybody’s profits. We never determined what civil liberties we have based on who can profit and who can’t.

But let’s go to the root of the question. It’s not a question, it’s an insult. One that has stuck around for as long as artistry itself, for it implies that artists need or even deserve to get paid. No artist thinks in these terms. The ones who do are the parasitic business people middlemen that you find defending the copyright monopoly and then robbing artists and their fans dry, laughing all the way to the bank while exploiting a legal monopoly system ruthlessly: the copyright monopoly.

Meanwhile, among artists, there is one insult that has remained consistent throughout artistry in history. An insult between artists that rips somebody’s artistry apart, that tells somebody they’re not even worthy of calling themselves an artist. That insult is “You’re in it for the money”.

“How shall the artists get paid?”, implying artists won’t play or create otherwise, that they’re doing it for the money, is a very serious insult.

There’s a reason “sellout” is a sharply negative word in artistry. The large majority of artists aren’t happy at all when you’re asking them if they’re playing to make money; it’s a grave insult. The frequently heard notion that you don’t create culture if you’re not paid for it comes from those who exploit artists, and never from artists themselves.

After all, we create not because we can make money off it as individuals, but because of who we are – how we are wired. We have created since we learned to put red paint on the inside of cave walls. We are cultural animals. Culture has always been part of our civilization, rewarded or not.

If an artist wants to sell their goods or services and become an entrepreneur, I wish them all the luck and success in the world. But business is business, and there is nothing that entitles an entrepreneur to sales.

About The Author:

Rick Falkvinge is a regular columnist on TorrentFreak, sharing his thoughts every other week. He is the founder of the Swedish and first Pirate Party, a whisky aficionado, and a low-altitude motorcycle pilot. His blog at falkvinge.net focuses on information policy.

Source: TorrentFreak

[davmil]

Interesting POV - many good points. But, as businessmen, shouldn't artists enjoy the same property rights as merchants against having their product boldface Stolen by others that simply want it. That is to say, I want a BMW, why should I have to pay for it?

Society and civilization exist on a social contract and exchange is part of that. It's not perfect, and no, you don't necessarily get paid for what you want to do, but I think Artists too should enjoy commercial property rights. Every business model has brokers and middlemen like you mentioned, and the internet is dealing with them day after day bringing the seller and buyer ever closer together.

[danieltex]

Artists, and lets face it we are talking about the music and film industry here, not actual art artist (painters and sculpters!), are in it to make a living. I do not begrudge them that. What I do begrudge them is the vast profiteering that has gone on far too long, especially in the music industry.

The new business model for the music industry really should revolve arround live entertainment. Today you can see the most successful bands, the artists that can really perfom will never lose out to piracy or a loss in sales of recordings, because they sell out stadiums year on year and make millions doing it. And you cannot pirate a live performance ( i do not mean record it, i mean experience it!)

A perfect example is the Rolling Stones - they release albums and it makes money but the vast majority of their income comes from their tours and live concerts. People want to see them live and do so in their hundreds of thousands at £50+ a ticket.

The new model for the music business should be this. Give the albums almost away for free/at cost (People like George Micheal and David Bowie are doing this sort of thing right now) and do a sell out tour making millions on the back of it.

With this model, the "pirates" are actually acting as a free unpaid distributer!

But the record companies don't like this because of course they are not get their slice of the pie. Only the artists and the tour promoter profit.

With the advent of the internet/computers and universal access to TV, we do not really need record companies to make or distribute or promote music.

Yet they are attempting to persist in enacting laws and rigging the system to keep them in the profit loop.This has to stop and the ones to do it are the artists themselves. Check out youtube and myspace and all the other music channels - its happening already.

As for the film industry, the cost of making a film can be high, but the profits and after sales of a hit movie are huge.Technology has meant that actually making a film is a lot cheaper than it was (no film processing, digital effects). The costs rises are the paychecks to the stars and people costs.

Yet the movie studios do not do what they used to do and plow that money back into smaller films or take risks on unknown movies anymore.The never ending chain of franchise blockbusters will tell you that.

The vast profiteering needs to stop.

£8 for a cinema ticket? £4 for a coke?and half the cinemas empty after the first two nights. They don't realise they are squeezing too hard.

If the tickets were £3 and the coke the same price as the fast food joint usually found outside the cinemas, the theatres would be packed. Or £2 for a small indie movie.People might go and see a film they are not sure of at £2 a ticket because if its rubbish they haven't been ripped off.The popularity of services such as Netflix tells you the way forward, and even that's overpriced.

The music and movie industry has to understand they are not giving value for money anymore and haven't been for some time.

Things will change and are changing whether they like them or not. Laws ultimately will not stop the change, only slow it down.

The ones that change will survive, the ones that don't will perish.

[Ambrocious]

I think the artist should get 85 percent of all profits and the companies who produce music (the studios) they should get 15 percent of the revenue. As it is, the artists are getting raped. The very BEST way to do it, is to do it yourself.

[Teemo]

However, not every artist can be as famous as Van Gogh, they also need to make money by different ways.

[bgood]

ask Willie Nelson the only one i can think of that does free concerts but sued buy the I.R.S. on taxes for them..WTF

[davmil]

Come on. Taxes are a reality of adult life and Willie tried to evade his share. If he needs $15 for a ticket and owes $3 tax / ticket, he'd better be charging $18/ticket.... just like every other businessman in the world.

[bgood]

"just like every other businessman in the world."

touche

so it's not about how every artist should be paid but how they should pay others?

cheers!

[flitox]

"just like every other businessman in the world."

touche

so it's not about how every artist should be paid but how they should pay others?

cheers!

totally right but in the music industry, more than often, the so called artist is just a fucking product.