Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters

[Snuffelluffogus]

Stefaan A Eeckels <tengo@DELETEMEecc.lu> wrote in message 
news:<20040507095640.6e2fef19.tengo@DELETEMEecc.lu>...
> On 6 May 2004 17:47:03 -0700
> darkred@myway.com (Snuffelluffogus) wrote:
> 
> > But the art traders ultimately exploited those artists' situations.
> > Exploitation is wrong.
> 
> Posthumously? Pray tell me how to exploit a stiff.

An explanation by analogy: in the Steve Martin song "King Tut",
there is the line, "He gave his life for tourism".

> > That is why today artists talk about attaching a contract to every
> > piece of artwork they sell, so that every subsequent resale results
> > in a percentage to them, or if they die then to their estate or someone
> > in need. And this is just.
> 
> Should architects get a cut whenever a house is sold? 

What a wonderful idea! But only if it is original art. A crappy
suburban house designed "to look kinda like" a FL Wright house
is excluded.

> Should the great-grandchildren of the carpenter get a
> percentage if I manage to sell an old table I found in
> my parents' attic?

IFF it is art.

> Should vintners benefit when their bottles get sold at
> ridiculous prices (and refund part of the spoils when
> the wine market crashes)?

First part only.
 
> If an artist manages to sell a work of art with such
> a contract (BTW, would you like to lease one of my
> paintings?), more power to him. 

The point is, the art dealer has to believe in the work's
future market value enough to sign the contract.
Thus it may help filter out the "solid red rectangle as art"
type of stuff.

> But _just_? What's so special about art that its 
> producers should be entitled to eternal compensation? 

By doing things this way, fine art becomes a dignified 
business -- it removes the aspect of exploitation.