If something becomes a thing in bureaucrats world then it also means it opens a door for receiving funding. Then your family member or friend create a foundation or something and then apply for those funds. Maybe they ran out of things and figured out there was something called demoscene. They don't do it out of good will. At least not in my opinion based on experience.
After you watch your taxes used to fuel wars and murder and there is no way to opt out or meaningfully vote for anything different, this is a completely rational view to take.
Just because the theft is by a group elected by a majority doesn’t make it not theft.
You can wax on as much as you want about the importance of government revenue, safety nets, and defense, but it doesn’t fundamentally change the fact that the source is currently money taken by force from the people.
Because the market is perfect and will foster the most beautiful arts efficiently, right?
There is some requirement for coordination in a societal level, taking taxes to fund what bureaucrats like to foster is imperfect but so far looks like the better alternative than just letting private and profit-driven interests drive what's culture or not.
Some of the best and most innovative art I've seen was developed wholly by public funding.
I can't imagine how it is in the USA, where art lives and dies by how marketable it is.
It occurs to me that the (newer) experimental art I have seen from America was developed by wealthy people with loads of free time; the era of wandering jazz and blues musicians having long since passed.
you are not paying attention if you think that the US has some kind of dearth of musicians and artists. the internet has made it easier than ever to create a profile and cultivate an audience.
none of the artists i know have made a living at it, and yet it has stopped precisely none of them. they are not wealthy people. do poor nations lack artists? this entire line of thinking is completely divorced from reality. just because the municipal government doesn't pay for as many murals or whatever does not mean artists cease to work.
>none of the artists i know have made a living at it, and yet it has stopped precisely none of them
Which is a big, bold underscore on the argument that copyright should be abolished. Almost no artists make a living from their work, rendering it a failure at its supposed goal. All it is doing is providing artificial capital for a handful of fat cat media companies and the handful of parasitic artists privileged to be a part of that scene. The vast majority of artists will never get a break, and will have to work to subsidize their art. And what does society get out of the copyright game? Less creative freedom to remix and a select few people get richer.
