robkelk Wrote:Let's try a more apropos analogy, then.I find your arguing somewhat disingenuous given your previous comments on the issue, but sure:
How long should a sculptor be paid for creating a statue? Does it make a difference if that statue ends up in a private collection or a town square? Does it make a difference if the statue is transitory (for example, made of ice and placed in a wedding reception hall)?
How long should a singer be paid for creating a song? Does it make a difference if that song ends up never being played or on the Top 40? Does it make a difference if the song is transitory (for example, only sung once and never recorded)?
A sculptor should get paid as much as they can negotiate to be paid. If they choose to work in ephemeral media, then unfortunately that means they're going to reduce their potential for getting paid for any given work in the future (though not completely destroy it if they can retain rights to media taken of the work while it existed, which of course most of them do not have). A sculpture is something of a different case to a novel or song because it is a singular, physical object that can be possessed; the sculptor is always within their rights to retain the actual object in lieu of sufficient payment (unless they were contracted to make it, of course), whereas an author or singer cannot analogously do this except by never allowing the work to reach the public.
A singer often doesn't create a song. If they do, then they should retain the rights to it just as an author does their work. No, I don't see why popularity makes a difference. In fact, I think if Singer A creates a song that is obscure and then Singer B covers it to huge success, then Singer A should indeed be compensated for their work (and so should Singer B, of course, but not to the same extent as if they had created the entire work themselves). I don't see whether it's relevent if it was recorded or not if the origin of the song is unambiguous.
Ultimately, my viewpoint is that the rights of the creators supersede that of the public. The public gets the privilege of consuming; the creators should be rewarded for this. I do not see the need to further reward the public for doing nothing. I would note that artists who feel differently, provided they retain the rights to their work, are perfectly free to release it into the public domain (the vast majority do not, including those that purport to support free downloading). Under the schemes of those who would destroy copyright, artists who want to retain control over their own creations have no such recourse; it is stripped from them regardless of their wishes.