Posting lyrics and scores online is a crime!

[eppie]

Hi,
From an incorrect assumption, the only valid conclusion is that the assumer is an ass.

Throughout history, art has been made because the artist needed money.  Check out the 'sponsors' of art in the middle ages and the Renaissance.  They didn't give the artists money for the hell of it.  They paid talented people for decorations in their churches and their homes. 

I think it not very valuable to compare these things. As you said yourself you are talking about decoration, not art. We call it art now.
I mean I can also start giving examples....but they usually only complicate a discussion.
But OK. I don't think Michelangelo had 50 managers behind him to help him get a smuch money as possible (and themselves even more). Michelangelo was actually good at things....Britney Spears...well..

It is a different world now.

Look at how much art is portraits -- done for he money.  Shakespeare didn't give a damn about creativity, he wanted a full house because he mostly worked on shares.  Dumas (father and son) wrote their plays for money and their prose at so much per word.  Bach's job was to create a new organ piece for each week's mass, just as the rector's job was to come up with a new sermon. And if either failed, there was no one to pass a plate to.  Scott gave us Waverly and Ivanhoe because he needed the money and that was the only thing he was capable of doing at the time.

That goes on to modern times, with RAH writing because his physical condition didn't allow him to take another job.  Money is why bands perform, otherwise there wouldn't be cover charges.  Movie theaters charge admission because everybody in the film food chain wants their bite.

Thank you for this information. Mind you I'm not against selling things you made.

Indeed, typically good art is made for money -- it must satisfy both the artist and the patron.  Art "for its own sake" is usually worthless crap that no one but the artist likes, and often not even the artist likes it.

There is a difference between art and decoration. And still, selling a painting you made is different than the music business nowadays.

Separating ignorant suckers from their money is a time honored tradition.  If you are included in that "we" then you have my condolences for your intellectual weakness.  If you are not included, then you've no right to complain.

Because I have to be selfish?

Sorry, I have neither the time nor the energy to decipher this paragraph.  But one thing I think you said is crap.  You imply that intellectual theft was recently criminalized.  Actually, that condition predates computers and copiers by a good long while.

--Pete
[right][snapback]96933[/snapback][/right]

No I don't imply that. I'm implying that when everybody was still taping music from the radio or friends nobody cared. Now the digital ages has surpassed the people come up with new ways to share files etc etc. the music industry realizes again that they have to get their money from other things like selling T-shirts and giving concerts.

(by the way, I don't really have the idea the music industry suffers so much from illegal copying....OK people 'own" more music....but don't spend less)