I’m going to copy/paste something I wrote to the other guy, because I feel like it’s relevant. You can think it’s bullshit if you want, but I wasn’t trying to say artists are greedy. I was trying to say humans are greedy. In your hypothetical, I would say that inventor shouldn’t monetize their new invention either. If your inventor invents a cancer vaccine I’d much rather have him/her tell the world the formula than sell it to the highest bidder. I know I’m not realistic and I’m a dirtbag socialist or whatever you want to call me. But damn man. Think about it. It’s not that bullshit once you realize I’m not some anti-artist asshole.
“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.”