Danny, good question. It's a tough time for artists, writers, and musicians to gain financial compensation for their work as mass communication is making their crafts more accessible at diminishing costs for consumers. Take an obvious example: if we want to listen to a particular song we can usually find it with ease on grooveshark.com and create a playlist with other music we want to enjoy in a matter of moments.
Of course I think that artists should be compensated for their work (my wife's sole source of income is through her artwork). But at the same time, I personally want to save money and minimize waste of paper and other resources. This, obviously, puts me in a bit of a conundrum.
While I read far more books than I buy (by way of borrowing books from either friends or libraries) I still, on occasion, will actually pay for books or music if I find that the work is of enough value for me to own and re-use (or even share) with great frequency. In a way, this makes me the type of consumer that demands high standards for music, books, and other materials. In order for me to purchase their work, an artist or writer must persuade me that it is of enough value that I should own it rather than merely borrow it.
With all that being said, it is also worth noting that I am completely opposed to the piracy of people's work. By limiting my borrowing within the boundaries of the law I am still providing at least some means of income for the producers of any particular work. When I borrow a DVD from the library, it is one DVD that was purchased by the library with my (and the rest of my community's) tax dollars. Each copy of a book, DVD, or CD that a local library lends is purchased from the publishers/producers of the material and is not mass-produced by the library. This is quite distinct from piracy in which one DVD may be purchased by a pirate but then is mass-produced (and either sold or freely distributed) with zero compensation funneled to the makers of the film.
That being said, you are right to identify the tension between wanting to support artists for their work and my admonition to conserve resources and reduce consumption. My approach isn't the last word on the subject, but it's the best thing that I know to do now.
For some other thoughts on this subject, check out this article by the author Sam Harris:
2 comments:
What do you have to say about supporting the authors of borrowed books and the musicians of borrowed music?
Danny, good question. It's a tough time for artists, writers, and musicians to gain financial compensation for their work as mass communication is making their crafts more accessible at diminishing costs for consumers. Take an obvious example: if we want to listen to a particular song we can usually find it with ease on grooveshark.com and create a playlist with other music we want to enjoy in a matter of moments.
Of course I think that artists should be compensated for their work (my wife's sole source of income is through her artwork). But at the same time, I personally want to save money and minimize waste of paper and other resources. This, obviously, puts me in a bit of a conundrum.
While I read far more books than I buy (by way of borrowing books from either friends or libraries) I still, on occasion, will actually pay for books or music if I find that the work is of enough value for me to own and re-use (or even share) with great frequency. In a way, this makes me the type of consumer that demands high standards for music, books, and other materials. In order for me to purchase their work, an artist or writer must persuade me that it is of enough value that I should own it rather than merely borrow it.
With all that being said, it is also worth noting that I am completely opposed to the piracy of people's work. By limiting my borrowing within the boundaries of the law I am still providing at least some means of income for the producers of any particular work. When I borrow a DVD from the library, it is one DVD that was purchased by the library with my (and the rest of my community's) tax dollars. Each copy of a book, DVD, or CD that a local library lends is purchased from the publishers/producers of the material and is not mass-produced by the library. This is quite distinct from piracy in which one DVD may be purchased by a pirate but then is mass-produced (and either sold or freely distributed) with zero compensation funneled to the makers of the film.
That being said, you are right to identify the tension between wanting to support artists for their work and my admonition to conserve resources and reduce consumption. My approach isn't the last word on the subject, but it's the best thing that I know to do now.
For some other thoughts on this subject, check out this article by the author Sam Harris:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-future-of-the-book
Post a Comment