I think Melissa hit on a key point in regards to law and digital ownership here. Current laws are far behind the technological advancements that have been made in the last few decades, and we're reaching a point where society is noticing it.
Remember the recent writer's strike over dvd sales? Should writers be paid for dvds of their material that are sold? Aren't they already paid for it once? What about other distributions? iTunes sales or network website streams? What about podcasts of episodes? Where does the line get drawn for ownership and compensation?
This is the return of the art and money conflict. What is it to be a successful starving artist? In this sense does the term artist redefine successful? To be successful at being a starving artist, don't you have to not succeed by conventional terminology, ie monetary success?
People will always want to be paid in some form. Recognition or salary have similar values depending on the culture.
It's funny when people say that the law is a living thing, yet it's so far behind technology trends. I don't know what the answer is to make everyone happy. I honestly don't think everyone will ever be happy. It's a conflict of interest, doing something you love, and people making money off it. Two very important, yet distinct things.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment