i believe we are missing a major point about art and its distribution. until recently art came in a 'one single representation' package because of the lack of distribution methods that we have today: print, digital, etc. former buyers paid millions on paintings and such because they robbed the general public from ever viewing such art. that doesn't happen today, furthermore, the fact that technology advanced and such wide distribution is permitted, is not the work of and should not be profited by the artist. whether one person or a billion sees mr. brown's work does not affect his creation process, therefore he should not be paid for it. given the beneficial effect of art on society, i believe the wider the public, the better. the artist should enjoy such thought changing behavior caused by his works and rejoice.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by rplesoiu.
technology is not the artist's work
i believe we are missing a major point about art and its distribution. until recently art came in a 'one single representation' package because of the lack of distribution methods that we have today: print, digital, etc. former buyers paid millions on paintings and such because they robbed the general public from ever viewing such art. that doesn't happen today, furthermore, the fact that technology advanced and such wide distribution is permitted, is not the work of and should not be profited by the artist. whether one person or a billion sees mr. brown's work does not affect his creation process, therefore he should not be paid for it. given the beneficial effect of art on society, i believe the wider the public, the better. the artist should enjoy such thought changing behavior caused by his works and rejoice.