I think this industry - and the public - tends to occasionally assume that creative work has less fiscal value than 'real' work. I see this every day and cop it myself. So think about it.
Would you work in your job and forfeit your wage? Here are some industry case scenarios not unlike Napster: (1) Photographers often don't get credited - and I know magazines that freely lift images from other magazines without approval of the photographer, let alone paying them. This is only OK if it's a promo image - in which case the photographer has been paid by a record company/promoter and there is an understanding or arrangement that it can be freely used for media purposes. (2) I know some publishers balk when I ask them about rates - several glossy mags in Australia have a policy of not paying their writers or pay them so little it's not worth it - most freelance writers get paid way, way less than a minimal wage. This is crazy, as the publishers would not consider not paying the accountants, for example, or the printer. There is still labour involved and an outlay. I'm not mercenary, I do a lot of work for free but I need to pay my bills. (3) Same with artists, DJs - esp up and coming or smaller names. The number of even big name artists who never get paid is ridiculous! I am sure Louis is fighting for a principle. It is not a privilege, it's a basic human right. Just because it is a 'creative' form of work does not mean there isn't time and labour involved - so go for it Louis. Also artists/photographers/writers are self-emplyed often - freelance, so they have no emplyer to pay their insurance/superannuation/sick pay/holiday pay/etc. They need an income, right? Sometimes the pay recording artists/photographers/writers get is barely enough to cover the outlay let alone plan a future!! Remember Talking Heads got just a couple of dollars in royalties foir their seminal albums! It was only when Mariah Carey sampled a Tom Tom Club track for Fantasy that at least a couple of members got some money in via publishing to invest in another recording project. The market obviously determines the value - if no one likes it, no one buys it. Simple but why should people have to give their stuff away for free? I am not against Napster but I think the artists should have a say if they don't want their music on there. It's a pity that Metallica were so bullheaded and attacked users but fundamentally I can see the argument. >Privilege, not right. Art, like most other forms of intellectual >property, has subjective quality and value. What right does someone >have to receive compensation for something of no value?
