Attention all those who enjoy file sharing: Le Gouvernement Francaise" is your friend!

Here's the connection. The reason that CD's cost so much is that instead of the money going to the artists, it goes to the distributors. That's why file sharing is great - cut out the middle man, get the art you want.

But the artists cry out - How do we get paid?

The French Government has the answer: Anyone who is granted "Artiste" status in France, be they a musician, painter, sculptor, contortionist (France is the mecca for Circus), whatever, gets a wonderful deal; you work X number of days out of the year doing your art, and the government pays you a salary for the entire year. It is not overly egalitarian because the best artists will still become the wealthiest, through touring.

But what is accomplished is that art comes one step closer to being public domain, as it is being sponsored by the government. Once that idea is out there, sharing files will become so common it will have to be decriminalized, the artists will always get paid, and many, many artists will get their work out there who otherwise would never had had a shot due to A&R politics.

There was a time when all ideas were public domain, the commodification of thought is a very recent phenomenon. I think we can still get back to that AND enjoy the advancement once enjoyed only because of such things as patents.

Thoughts?

The cynical anti-government part of me says the following: First, what happens when the government starts to define "art"? Who gets paid and who doesn't? How is "Artiste" defined? Can someone get his cronies that status? Is there a panel that makes a decision? (All this is very suspicious to my tiny little brain.) Isn't this a not-so-subtle way for the government to control the creative process and the art world? Further, it may foster art that no one really likes at all. Let's say that Roseanne Barr was not a (successful?) actress/comedienne, but, rather, wanted to be a singer. She sings. The government pays her. No one in their right mind wants to hear her sing. (Anyone who tuned in to her rendition of the American National Anthem knows what I am talking about.) However, under your scenario, she gets a salary. Anyone who wants to loaf on welfare does the same. Suddenly, they are not unemployed no-goodniks, they're "Artists."

Second, why would I, as a taxpayer, want my government to subsidize art that I don't like or don't approve of or don't believe is art? Let's say, for example, that someone paints nothing but Nativity scenes. It's painting, so it's art. However, I'm an atheist, or a Jew or a Hindu, whatever. Why do I want to subsidize someone paying homage to the Christian religion?

I just can't get even vaguely behind this idea.

Seems like very good idea, and a big step forward. I hope that it takes off elsewhere.

Consider this. Those who are better should become more popular (well, this doesn't always work, but it is an approximation), and those who become more popular are going to recieve two things which others do not, namely;

More chance of being hired for a 'gig' or a larger concert or well recieved on a tour.

Fame and popularity, respect for their works, which I think is the driving force behind many such performers in the first place, next to trying to say some sort of message, and enjoying themselves.

Also, it might put those who are just shoved forward by the corporation 'machine' and who have little talent of their own back on the same playing field as everyone else.

Not what I would choose ideally, that is, everyone working independantly, starting locally and given their notoriety they shall be elevated as accords them, but it is a damn good start.

Edit: I just read dmc's post, and he brings up some very very good points. This definately has it's flaws and may need to be refined, but I still think it is a better system than the one which exists now, and fairer (and cheaper) to the public as well. It is true that it may be abused, but I can think of a lot of other ways in which a lot more of the taxpayer's money is wasted.

I think it is definately worth it's salt, if only to consider. I for one am right behind it.

This really isnt something new, this is how it used to work for many artists back in the olden days. I am also pretty confident that it is how it works here in Sweden too. Artists can apply for government funding, dont know the details but I dont think it is much different from the French version.

DMC has a point though, someone must decide who gets funding and who dont. There is no perfect way to do this.

Well, It seem just silly, I mean they will receive pay even if they are the worst artist ever? I think it will be a better idea to pay like 0.50$ a song on a program like kazaa or something like that, So we may still be able to download music but legally and still encouraging artist for their talent. If this project is accepted some people may really abuse it.

Note: it's Le gourvernement Français
with a ¨e¨ it mean the word is ¨feminine¨ but Gourvenement isn't ¨feminine¨ therefore their's no e.

Kudos to the French government. Seems theirs aren't as retarted as ours.

On multiple occasions I have pointed out that piracy profits the distributors more than the pirates themselves. How? By providing a convinient and blurry enough reason for price raises. This is especially true for not games but serious software vendors. Someone just has to buy the legal software, so some copies will sell no matter what.

This is the logic behind, for example, Micro$oft raising the price of one Windows Upgrade from $90 to $190 for a total of 5% more (five percent) income from sales (has anyone also noticed that OEM is thrice cheaper than normal Windows and it's still profitable - or would they be selling it?). As is obvious, this means a great customer loss. Who cares? We can always change the law. However, no one seems to notice that if copyright laws (& enforcement) in early eighties had looked like now, there would be no Microsoft today. It also gives some insight to trace the dealings of our loudest copyright champions with Apple, IBM and Netscape.

I think it deserves a mention that software companies, with Redmond in the lead, don't quite suffer from financial troubles, to say the least.

All right, and just how much of it goes to the inventors, creators, developers, designers etc? Those are only used as banners for extorting ridiculous prices, nothing more.

I hope the French government have as much of balls as they have of brains and they will make it work.

Does France have a high tax rate? I'm guessing it is going to get even higher to finance this. I can hum a little bit, can I also get on the gravy train?

Sorry for the sarcasm, but things like this drive this libertarian crazy. Government should only be involved in defense and transportation. Otherwise it shouldn't interfere with anyone's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

That's the problem The Great Snook, that we do not think our government should be involved in our lives. If we had leaders we could respect more then we would welcome their intervention, as they would be either a just and noble King, or a perfect representation of the people as a ruling council(s).

Manus, speak for yourself please. I do not want anyone telling me what to do any more than absolutely necessary to preserve a civilized society. I don't think a just and noble king or a member of a ruling council has any right whatsoever to tell me what to do, what art to like, what music to listen to, etc. I am my own keeper, as I am an adult. Your post suggests that the populace should be treated as children. I disagree 100%. Let the artists rise or fall on their own merit, not because some muckety-muck who happens to be in government likes them.

They should have a competition to chose which artists get the free money. It should be open to all comers. They could call it Bone Idol . ;)

SWEET!

My collection of semi-crushed, thoroughly empty beer cans has just been designated as "Arte" by "le Governmente de France".

I now will be able to draw a pension as I work to ensure that my "Collectione d'Arte" remains current and continues to grow.

I am soooooo glad that they execute Conservatives over there.

EDIT: "Tonight the part of 'Shralp' will be played by Hacken Slash, while Shralp searches for his missing avatar."

I think you mis-interpreted me dmc, I'm not saying that a leader should tell you how to think, or what to like, I'm just saying that a respected leader or leaders judgement on matters of law would be more respected than the current system to the general populace.

This is actually less interference than before, as the copyright laws and lawsuits are being removed. I'm sure some sort of monitoring could be in place if you are that worried about who recieves the pension, it's not that hard a thing to do.

Also, it does let the artists rise and fall on their own merit. Think of their pension as a sort of unemployment benefit to get them off their feet. Once they make it big (depending on how the populace recieves their work) they will be making money from other sources. If anything, this is a much fairer system to all involved, as it places them all on a level-playing field, and the ones who are popular but not very good will probably end up with their wares being mostly downloaded (or whatever the case may be) while those who are good but it doesn't appeal to anyone will have to bite the bullet and admit that they need to find another method of income. Those in the middle, who's work is decent and has wide appeal will benefit the most.

I fail to see how this is treating anyone like children or how the preference of a government official would influence anything. Everyone is benefitted the same, it is up to them to take it from there. If the issue is taxes for unemployment benefits that's another matter entirely.

Your thourough resentment of a leader has proved my point. A respected leader is one who is respected, therefore you respecting him is what defines such a leader, and you will not resent one who has earned your respect. You cannot fault such a statement becasue it is dependant upon your own approval that such a leader exists.

@ Manus - I think you misunderstood my reply as well. I resent any leader who wants to tell me what to do, whose art is valuable enough to merit a government pension, etc. By definition (or at least my definition) there can be no leader respected enough who can be allowed to do that, for in so doing I am abdicating my own thought and free will. If you believe that there is some nebulous leader out there who can pick artists that everyone will like, I must say that you and I have a severely different view of humanity. In my opinion, any time the government (whoever it is) subsidizes a particular artist, the government is telling the people that what that person does is "art." The negative inference is that the un-subsidized ones do not do "art." That is telling me how to think.

As far as the whole concept of putting everyone on some kind of pension, that is a capitalist/socialist distinction that I would be happy to take up with you in another thread. Suffice it to say that I am firmly on the capitalist side of the equation and believe that no one "deserves" a pension for being an artist. I see that system as promoting laziness among those who are not artists, but think they should be, as well as among those just looking for a handout any way they can get one.

The children comment went along with the government telling me how to think point. I don't even let my wife tell me what kind of things constitute "art" and she is a professional musician (whereas I am generally a self-professed cultural philistine).

You are right dmc, and I'm not trying to say anyone should tell you how to think, I'm talking about changing the law, and as far as I know the French are more socialist in terms of their views towards welfare. I agree with you on that issue by the way. I don't think I could be any more socialist or communist (or democratic or monarchic for that matter) than I am, but welfare to me seems out of hand, and it can be abused. I have done that myself, so I'm not just against poor people here, I'm one of them.

I don't think that the government officials are picking anyone, I think it would simply include anyone who had allready generated themselves a business from said art, that is, they have a band or make songs or sell paintings (at least that is how I interpreted it) and they have to work towards that art to continue recieving the pension. If someone is not included in this status due to their wares not being percieved by the public as art (because it is the public view which shall determine who has reached such a status, that is, those who have been accepted by the public are those on the list) then how is that any different to how it is now? It may seem unfair, but no more than the system allready is, and people can always petition the law.

It seems to me there are only benefits from this, not penalties. I agree I would not like to fund evryone out there with taxes, but that issue is alltogether seperate, as it would include a re-structuring of how the government runs itself - as it currrently is, then no real changes have taken place as concerns this issue (I doubt that there would not be any change in taxes were this not happening, taxes always increase).

And no-one is telling you who you call an 'artist' by the way, they are only telling you what they think. This sort of things happens all the time, Elton John was knighted for christ's sake, and this is not giving anyone any honorary status, it just gives them funding so that songs are not copyrighted and traded as a commodity like salt.

Edit: Whoops, what they think, what they think. Hehe.

I'm not sure I've ranted about this before, so I'll be brief. Don't want to make the triple secret probation list just yet.

I just don't care for marketing anymore. Maybe it's because I'm dumb. I like to think I've learned enough to look at specifications and decide for myself. Either way, hype doesn't arouse me anymore.

I'd rather they make money off live performances. Performances where they can't lip sync or have elaborate mix-ins. I'd rather "society" refine it's taste from the surreal to the real.

Less antialiasing, please. Thanks.

I just want to point out that the main idea here is not government intervention, but public ownership of culture, rather than corporate. The current situation is that Sony, Geffen, Electra, et cetera, are the ones "telling us what to do". Is that any better or worse than the government doing so? As I pointed out above, the way that it is decided is that the artist must obtain paid work for a certain number of days per year, in order to qualify for funding.

If we get hung up on the "big brother" aspect of things, here, we're missing the forest for the trees. By putting the power into PUBLIC hands, we are diminishing intervention, rather than increacing it. At the end of the day, there will be more art, and more diversity for everyone to consume. More diversity means more choice. This is the ultimate free market because then only the music consumer decides what to play or not to play.

If you disagree, just tell me your favourite band that you've never heard of. Whay should the (unelected) major labels dictate what we listen to?

FYI (as a post script):
While the record album, the the 8-track, the cassette tape and the CD were all developed (and copywrited) by record labels and/or electronics companies, the MP3 was developed by a German scientist on a grant from the German government.

He released the MP3 code as FREEWARE. Perhaps he wanted to give his gift to society. Perhaps he thought freeware gave him cometitive advantage. Perhaps he didn't realize that MP3s would become as prolific as any prior media format in less time.

In any event, he wittingly or unwitting started a legacy: Free software to exchange free music. The dam has come down, and no amount of futile legislation, no amount of bogus lawsuits will halt the roaring flood of the new age. Our culture is back in the hands of it's rightful owners.

[ December 24, 2003, 05:15: Message edited by: Ishmael ]