|
I'm not big on the whole sense of entitlement, whether for "work" or "art." The simple act of working on something doesn't mean that anyone -- or the world in general -- owes you payment for it. Your labor, whether you're a painter or a sculptor or a plumber, is only worth whatever someone else is willing to pay you for it. If nobody is willing to pay you for your labor, you have a hobby, not a job.
There's nothing wrong with having hobbies (I have many!), and there's no reason why someone's hobbies are inherently less "professional" (in the sense of being very good at their craft) than their day job. It just means that there's no buyer for their work at present.
In many cases I think it's easier to produce good art as a hobby than when trying to support yourself. I know a lot of people who have given up their artistic vision or goals in order to try and commercialize their art, and they end up spending less time overall doing what they actually love than if they just got a 9-5 and did their art as a hobby, without regard to its commercial viability.
As to the issue of copyright, I tend to believe that the current system is hugely anachronistic and that people should be paid more on a labor / work-for-hire basis and less on a royalties one (which is sort of what the OP's quote is getting at) but I'm not as militant about it as that guy is. I'd like to see copyright cut back to the life of the author at the very longest, and perhaps shorter than that -- the purpose of copyright isn't to provide content creators with a living or an income stream, it's just to encourage the creation of new works. If people will keep creating in the absence of copyright, then there's no need for copyright.
|