Independent Artists are not working class. They do not get paid in wages and they control the means of production. They are petit-bourgeoise.
This might be technically true but saying this as an excuse to why its ok for corporations to plagiarize from independent artists is like actually horrific. (And its vaguely shitty though not as bad to use it as an excuse for why its ok for individuals to plagiarize from independent artists).
Like I'm sorry I know that technically under the terms definition an independent artist barely scrapping by on a handful of commissions or patreons who struggles as much as any minimum wage worker to make ends meet is as "petite-bourgiouse" as a jetski dealer who lives comfortably. But there are two things I gather from that
Them technically falling under the same umbrella doesn't excuse treating them the same because the material conditions they are facing are different. One is clearly vulnerable to exploitation, the other simply isnt in the same way.
Honestly? We probably need new terms if these two things fit the same definition as the definition currently stands, because they are materially different in so many ways. I refuse to be a slave to Marxist definitions as they currently stand if they cease to be useful to describe our material reality, and I'd say this is a pretty clear case of them not productively describing our material reality.
Intellectual property is bullshit as a concept but under capitalism independent artists are vulnerable and exploited and should be protected from plagiarism. Particularly in the case of a bigger fish being the plagiarizer, whether that bigger fish be AI companies or situations like James Sommerton plagiarizing smaller creators.
I'm not going to respond to most of this because its just completly misguided but I did want to zero in on probably the worst part.
if the people who make entertainment and art are comfortable and content with secure jobs
Are you under the impression that the majority of artists are currently in this position lol? Like is that where your brain is broken on this issue you think most people who draw or write for a living are comfortable?
This might be technically true but saying this as an excuse to why its ok for corporations to plagiarize from independent artists is like actually horrific. (And its vaguely shitty though not as bad to use it as an excuse for why its ok for individuals to plagiarize from independent artists).
Like I'm sorry I know that technically under the terms definition an independent artist barely scrapping by on a handful of commissions or patreons who struggles as much as any minimum wage worker to make ends meet is as "petite-bourgiouse" as a jetski dealer who lives comfortably. But there are two things I gather from that
Intellectual property is bullshit as a concept but under capitalism independent artists are vulnerable and exploited and should be protected from plagiarism. Particularly in the case of a bigger fish being the plagiarizer, whether that bigger fish be AI companies or situations like James Sommerton plagiarizing smaller creators.
deleted by creator
I'm not going to respond to most of this because its just completly misguided but I did want to zero in on probably the worst part.
Are you under the impression that the majority of artists are currently in this position lol? Like is that where your brain is broken on this issue you think most people who draw or write for a living are comfortable?
deleted by creator