Wanting to be compensated, or at least credited, for your work isn’t greed. What a dumb comment.

For what it’s worth, I knew people would jump down my throat for that one. I think people assume I’m some anti-art business minded snob. The truth is it’s almost the opposite. I’ve been a struggling musician before, I know how hard it is to make ends meet when no one wants to actually pay for music anymore. But my mindset has always been that we should focus on the art itself, not the compensation for it.

It’s true that money can be a great incentive. And I’m sure being rich is really fun. (I wouldn’t know). But I guess in my admittedly idealist rationale, those who appreciate art should want it to be as freely accessible as possible, which means artists shouldn’t be concerned with being compensated, and instead trademark, copyright, and patent should be geared more towards protecting the public from mass confusion and brand-stealing than compensation.

I’m sure you disagree, many people do. You can call me a dirty hippy idealist communist if you want. But don’t misunderstand. IP law does not protect the little guy. It doesn’t protect creativity, freedom of expression, sharing artistry, cooperation, or collaboration. It protects Taylor Swift by making sure you can’t stream her new album. Keep that in mind.

Like what you read? Give Miles Whitt a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.