Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters

[Stefaan A Eeckels]

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.

> 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? 
Should the great-grandchildren of the carpenter get a
percentage if I manage to sell an old table I found in
my parents' attic?
Should vintners benefit when their bottles get sold at
ridiculous prices (and refund part of the spoils when
the wine market crashes)?

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. 

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

As to benefitting a needy person, profits from the
art trade are taxed. 

-- 
Stefaan
-- 
"What is stated clearly conceives easily."  -- Inspired sales droid