OneManga shutting down

[robkelk]

I find your arguing somewhat disingenuous given your previous comments on the issue,

I don't know why, since it's based in the same premise as my previous comments.

Because your actual position, unless it's changed, is that artists should not be doing art to make a living. That is what you said the last time we discussed the matter. Thus I do not have any particular belief that you are arguing in good faith, or, to be more generous, that we come from even remotely compatible starting assumptions.

That's what I believe should be the case, yes. But we aren't discussing what should be, we're discussing what is.

But music is, by its very nature, ephemeral. It's only when recorded that it becomes as lasting as a sculpture.

So what?

However, a sculpture can be used as a form around which a mold is made, and the mold used to mass-produce the sculpture. Likewise, a song can captured in a master recording, and the master recording used to mass-produce the song. (Yes, not every sculpture becomes a form for a mold, and not every song becomes a master recording for a record.) I don't see how this argument is even valid, let alone relevant.

And, uh, the molds are protected by copyright, which has been pointed out to you.

By somebody using the handle "robkelk", in fact... Oh, wait - that's me.

So... what's your point? What are you driving at here, exactly?

Perhaps you missed it:

Allowing for this behaviour makes the two types of artistry more directly comparable.

No, I see that you didn't miss it - in fact, you replied to it.

If I hadn't drawn the comparison as closely as possible, it's a good bet that somebody would have said the two artforms aren't comparable. I did this to stifle that complaint.

The RIAA would have us believe that more popular songs are worth more money, since they ask for damages based on number of downloads of a song.

I really couldn't care less what the RIAA would "have you believe". Why is that relevant? Am I the RIAA? Am I associated with them? Have I espoused a belief in their position on the matter? Have I even brought them up?

You said:

No, I don't see why popularity makes a difference.

This is an example of why popularity makes a difference. Just because you don't like the RIAA doesn't make it any less of an example.

Recording a song changes it from an ephemeral artwork to a lasting artwork, just as sculpting a statue in ice changes the statue from a lasting artwork to an ephemeral artwork. Allowing for this behaviour makes the two types of artistry more directly comparable.

Except they still aren't, because one is a physical object that cannot be perfectly replicated, and one is not a physical object and can be. You should be familiar with this concept, since it is the one ever-so-tediously quoted to explain why pirating things isn't really stealing even though it is illegally taking something you have no right to.

And I've never used that argument to differentiate "piracy" and "theft". Instead, I've pointed at actual laws.

Am I the RIAA these people? Am I associated with them? Have I espoused a belief in their position on the matter? Have I even brought them up?

Why?

I explained that already. The creators create the product. The public is already rewarded by having the privilege of consuming it.
Why do you think the public deserves to supersede the artist and gain as much right over their work, during the artist's lifetime, as the artist has?

Because someone in the public has paid the artist for that work. If you want creation of artwork to be treated as a business, then treat it as a business - no half-measures.

And I do not see the need to further reward the artists for doing nothing. They've been paid once already for that work. (Unless, as you pointed out, they chose to release their work into the public domain - but that's their choice.)

And yet, that isn't how it works in any other field, which is why pensions, stockholders, and so forth exist.

I see you've never actually had a pension or owned stock. Pensions are paid for by the people who expect to draw money from the pensions, either directly or as a deduction from their paychecks - they're savings for retirement, not a gift for previous work that's already been paid for. Stock is an example (not the only one) of people loaning money to a company - the company pays for the privilege of using that money, and the stockholders get their money back when they sell the stock. (Unless the company goes bankrupt, but the rate of return is adjusted to take that into account.)

There is a concept of payment in gratitude for services rendered which exists throughout our society and is why we do not abandon our elderly on ice floes. I believe significant cultural contributions are at least as important as being a founder of Walmart, and deserve reward.

However, "payment in gratitude for services rendered" is customarily made once per service rendered, not repeatedly. There are exceptions - I'm asking (again) why this is one of them.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012