"I deserve automatic compensation (rent) for 100+ years for any one who consumes this media just because I recorded any bit of audio, put one mark on a paper, or created 1 frame of a motion picture."
Pure straw man argument.
Nobody is talking about “automatic compensation”. Nobody is getting paid for putting “one make on a paper” if nobody wants to buy it.
People get to price their works. If you don’t like the price or don’t think it’s worth it, you don’t pay for it. Nobody gets “automatic compensation” if nobody wants to buy their work. These are such obvious ground truths that you’re ignoring for the sake of trying to make a strained point.
Sorry, you’re not entitled to the output of other people’s labor for free, just like I’m not entitled to the output of your labor for free.
For things requiring lots of research and development, I think some mechanism should exist to document and extend the period, or "pay per year" scheme, but no longer than 30 years.
It’s fascinating to see people in this thread pretend like art exists in a vacuum and act like the people who created it shouldn’t be involved in the equation at all.
Something tells me those same people would get very upset if we suggested their own work, code, or labor should be freely used by anyone who wanted to, including their employer. I’m guessing they like to be paid for their work. They just don’t like paying other people for their work.
> Should we fully subsidsize anyone who calls themselves an artist?
Why are you trying to talk about subsidies and how people identify?
You’re throwing out straw man arguments to try to distract from the real point: People get to decide how much to charge for their work. If you don’t want to pay that amount, you are not entitled to receive it for free.
The way some people are pretending like they have a moral entitlement to the labor of other people in this thread is wild.
> Something tells me those same people would get very upset if we suggested their own work, code, or labor should be freely used by anyone who wanted to, including their employer. I’m guessing they like to be paid for their work
For the record, I think it should work like this: I'm an artist. You want art from me. You tell me what you want, I create it, you pay me. This is straightforward and obvious.
> People get to decide how much to charge for their work. If you don’t want to pay that amount, you are not entitled to receive it for free.
It costs many dollars to make copy 1 of Y. You worked, you should get paid for copy 1.
It costs 0 dollars to make copy 2 of something. Anything you think you should receive above 0 for copy 2 is only justifiable with moral entitlements to the money of other people.
Yet another strawman! Nobody demanded ownership forever, but some form of compensation for things you enjoy.
> For the record, I think it should work like this: I'm an artist. You want art from me. You tell me what you want, I create it, you pay me. This is straightforward and obvious.
What you describe isn't art, but the service of creating an artwork on demand as a service.
> It costs many dollars to make copy 1 of Y. You worked, you should get paid for copy 1.
If we were doing that, society would be at a net loss, because pretty much nobody was able to pay the cost for an artwork upfront - a single movie costs up to several hundred millions of dollars to manufacture. This leads to a world where most media simply wouldn't exist. I doubt that's the one you'd prefer living in.
Instead, by spreading this amount over consumers, we can have accessible content for most people, and a way for artists to make a living from creating artworks as a service.
> What you describe isn't art, but the service of creating an artwork on demand as a service.
Not a strawman (and also relevant to copyrightable art) while copyright is able to used to enforce royalties. Fair compensation is 1 work = 1 payment, not 1 work = pay over 100+ years.
(Related aside: Private entities have the right to enter into contracts they wish (e.g. if you personally want to pay an artist over and over during your lifetime, fine), but when it seeps into law that enables third parties to sue, then it is no longer a private matter.)
> If we were doing that, society would be at a net loss,
> Instead, by spreading this amount over consumers, we can have accessible content for most people
Mass media dilutes art, makes it impersonal, limits attention span by encouraging a "fad/fashion" approach to creative works, and forces art to be subservient to things like advertising. You sure it wouldn't be a net gain?
It does make artists lives more difficult, but things that are more important to society are difficult as well, such as being a doctor, so ... no sympathy.