SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the are-utilities-really-optional dept.
Broadband Internet access is a "core utility" that people need in order to participate in modern society– just like electricity, running water, and sewers, the White House said on Tuesday. A report written by the Broadband Opportunity Council, a group created earlier this year by President Obama and co-chaired by the Secretaries of Commerce and Agriculture, says that even though broadband "has steadily shifted from an optional amenity to a core utility," millions of Americans still lack high-speed Internet access.
The report cites 2013 data indicating that about 51 million Americans, or about 16 percent of the population, cannot purchase broadband access at their homes. That number may have dropped by now, but the White House says the government needs to make a bigger push to expand broadband deployment, especially in rural areas and low-income communities.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Thursday September 24 2015, @05:38PM
And the quality of work wasn't on par with what we had 30 or 40 years ago. Up until relatively recently artists had to find a patron to fund them, now most of them work 2 or3 jobs so they have the money to afford to create art.
People need to spend a large amount of time developing their skills in order to get them to a level where people are even willing to use the materials without paying. I venture that if you go and look at the copyright material, the vast majority of the stuff you actually want to view is going to be from people that spent many years developing their skills. Having the option of selling is helps to justify the sacrifices that need to be made in order to be the next Dali, Munch or Rembrandt.
But, more than that, why should I or anybody else create works that can be taken and sold by somebody else? Why should my work go to enriching somebody else with no compensation paid to me?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 24 2015, @06:20PM
You shouldn't do work that no one is willing to pay you for. So, don't do it. If I remember my history, most of those famous artists died penniless. (when did they invent pennies? my statement is an anachromism?) You gotta be nuts to get into that line of work. So - go flip hamburgers at McDonald's for $15.00/hr, and let some other chump paint/compose/write/whatever. But, don't blame me if that other chump starts collecting the big bucks because people really like him/her.
Nothing prevents you from finding a patron, either. Hell, get ten or get twelve hundred, if you like.
I thought that artists mostly did what they do because they like it? Why are you worried about making money at it? Millions of people have hobbies, for which they expect no compensation. When did you hear of a model rail roader striking it rich? But, piccolo players expect to be PAID for playing the piccolo? Strange . . .
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday September 24 2015, @06:37PM
I thought that artists mostly did what they do because they like it? Why are you worried about making money at it?
That must be true for just about any profession. After all, you can't seriously believe that only forms of artistry would exhibit this trait.
So the nurse, the mechanic, the programmer, the brick layer, and, yes, even the burger flipper must be doing their jobs because they like it.
See how stupid that argument sounds now?
If not, get your ass over here and mow my lawn. You know you like it, because you've done it before. Bring your own mower, and supply your own gas, because that's how you do it.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday September 24 2015, @06:38PM
Sigh, idiots like you are why we can't have nice things.
To become a genius on the order of the ones I've listed takes decades of constant work. There's no way that anybody is going to attain that level of brilliance and hold down a job to finance it. You make it sound like these are people who should be living in the streets because they dare to commit themselves to their art.
And no, nobody prevents folks from finding a patron, but how many patrons are there that are willing to give an artist money for something that has no commercial value and can be copied by other folks indefinitely? I'm guessing not many as the Film and Music industries depend upon a source of income to finance operations.
Yes, millions of people have hobbies, but are you fucking serious? Out of those millions of hobbyists, how many of them ever rise to the level of a Louis Armstrong or a Jimmy Hendrix? Yes, some of them do, but it's a tiny, tiny fraction of the total because you need to pay the bills.
Are you so fucking stupid that you don't understand that people need food and shelter to live? And that attaining the highest levels and advancing the arts is more than a full time job? There are many lesser artists out there, but the ones that are commonly talked about are people that are working 60 and 80 hour work weeks and literally living and breathing their art. You hardly ever hear about anybody that was performing at that level as a part time artist. In fact, I don't think I can name a single individual who was working side jobs through their entire career and amongst the elite artists.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 24 2015, @07:44PM
Stupid? Hurling insults indicates that you've run out of rational arguments.
I'm not so stupid as to think that anyone in the world owes me for doing something I enjoy. If people don't want to pay you, then don't do whatever it is. When I was growing up, half the guys I knew had guitars. They were happy to play for anyone who would listen to them. Has the world changed so much?
I keep coming back to this: Entertain. If you're good, people will pay you for the privilege of listening, watching, reading. If you're no good, they might pay you not to entertain them.
BTW - WTF makes Hendrix better than any dozen other contemporary artists? I understand that he impressed some music industry executives, and his individual sound appealed to a lot of people. Had he not been "discovered", it would have been some other schmuck. The industry was going to distribute some tunes, Hendrix or no Hendrix. I contend that there were others just as worthy. Don't we owe those others something? At least an honorable mention? They certainly didn't get the promotional advertising that Hendrix got. And THAT is what made Hendrix, and countless other artists.
Look around you today. Without much effort, I could name a dozen vacuous bimbos, and a dozen braindead meatheads who have all the same marketing - and none of them can sing or act worth a crap.
How 'bout them Kardashian sisters? Do you need a better example of vacuous bimbos? They have contributed just about nothing to the entertainment world, unless you count the first porn video. Personally, I don't count that as any kind of a contribution. There are better looking, more talented women living within a couple miles of my house.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday September 25 2015, @02:08PM
*Most* of my favorite bands do exactly that. My Dying Bride for example still works other jobs in addition to their music. Been doing so for over 25 years now. They've released 11 full albums plus a bunch of EPs and other stuff, they've toured nearly every continent, and they practically defined a genre!
[insert current pop star here] probably couldn't do it, because they're paying twenty writers to come up with a five word chorus...but real artists certainly can.
(Score: 2) by Taibhsear on Thursday September 24 2015, @10:31PM
You mean like record companies?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2015, @08:35AM
I never said someone else should be able to sell your work. but why shouldn't they be able to copy it for no compensation?
if you don't want your "work" to be distributed outside your control, then don't do the "work".
but if you're paid to hold a concert, and I record your concert, what rights do you have on my recording? you're paid for playing at the concert, not for anything else. you're welcome to forbid people from recording you, and I see nothing wrong with that, although I don't see how you can enforce it.
however, if a recording is made, the owner of the recording should only demand compensation proportional to the amount of wear and tear that the copying process produces on the physical object holding the recording.