When you suggested a tax (basically being forced to pay for nothing) instead
of a sustainable capitalistic model, you lost all credibility.
Not against nothing. It would be an incentive for the publication of more
artistic works and, maybe more importantly, for a greater diversity. And,
like I wrote:
It would work not only for art but for anything on Internet: press articles,
software, etc. In compensation, non-commercial sharing must be made legal.
Like it should.
I certainly lost any credibility in the eyes of Republicans who even believe
that people who cannot afford private health care should just die because
doctors must make money, not cure the whole population with tax dollars.
Those people who cannot pay for private health care are not more stupid or
lazy. They only have crappy jobs because their parents could pay them private
education. Republicans believe in private education: teachers must make
money, not educate the whole population with tax dollars. So, yes, talking
with a Republican about a tax that goes to artists, journalists, free
software developers, etc. for the benefit of the whole population certainly
leads nowhere. I am not talking to those selfish people.
From your perspective, all art should be free without restriction ...
Anyone should be free to non-commercially redistribute art. There can still
be restrictions on commercial redistribution, on modification, etc. Those are
not unethical.
Notice that people have been massively sharing works of art since Napster in
1999. Yet, the cultural industry is thriving. For example, the cinema
industry breaks gross records almost every year! Released last year, "Star
Wars: The Force Awakens" is the third highest gross *ever* for a movie;
"Jurassic World" is fourth, "Furious 7" is sixth; "Avengers: Age of Ultron"
is seventh; "Minions" is eleventh; etc.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/
Anyway, 99% of the artists (all artists minus superstars) would starve if
they had not another job. It has always been like that. With or without
non-commercial sharing.
and artists should rely on begging (Patreon and Kickstarter) instead of an
actual model where you can have a business and provide jobs.
What model? The current one where 99% of the artists cannot make a living?
What you call "a sustainable capitalistic model" only sustains Sony,
Universal, ... and the superstars (Justin Bieber, Tom Cruise, ...) they
chose. One can like what those companies feed the population but there exists
far more in the artistic world.
Journals are dying too. This time, it really has to do with the competition
on the Web (not only of other online journals but of bloggers, of contacts in
social networks, etc.). I would love to distribute part of my tax to a
journalist who would have written a great article and put a Flattr-like
button next to it. Instead, we currently have less and less journalists
(especially investigative journalists) and more and more slightly edited
copies of what "Associated Press", "Reuters", "Agence France Presse" and the
likes write. Some journals just follow the agenda politics want them to
follow. The readership obviously goes away. If nothing is done, most journals
will end up being bought by Facebook, Google, Apple, ... and their walled
gardens, their profiling, their advertisers, their collaboration with
governments, etc.
there has to be a push to encourage artistic freedom without them being
worried about their next meal
That is precisely what the tax would be for.
