"The real artists don't do it for the money. If they are doing it just for money, all it means is that they are greedy. If I couldn't make a living as a programmer, I would still do it on the side because I enjoy it."
Wanting to get paid means you're greedy? So you don't mind if your salary is reduced to zero then? I'll get in touch with your company right away, they'll be delighted with the cost saving, I'm sure.
I note how all these people who are, in essence, arguing that others should work for nothing are not, themselves, quite prepared to take that step.
The other point is that the anti-copyright argument always rests on the ability to sell items that are not copyable ("complements") rather than selling the item that is the primary source of value (which can't be sold because it's copyable and we cannot or do not want to enforce copyright). The flaw in this scheme is obvious. In a world where more and more goods are likely to be digitalised, you cannot charge for the item itself (meaning that the market price will be unrelated its value), but only for "complements". If these complements do not exist, the value of the item cannot be extracted from the consumer. If they do exist, their value will determine the market price. This is, at the least, a clear market distortion. There is, one assumes, some sort of relationship between the popularity of a band's music and, say, its t-shirt sales. The same could be said for concerts, but this conveniently ignores that fact that many great bands of the recording era made their best music in the studio, when they had stopped touring (anyone remember The Beatles?). But what about books? Once copyright on books is being systematically flouted and it is no longer possible to charge for them, what complements are authors supposed to sell? T-shirts? Autographs? There is a reason why, even today, many books are not available in electronic format, and that reason is piracy. If publishers are smart, they will continue to restrict digital availability of their works to closed devices such the Kindle. This is a clear cost imposed on us by piracy.
One last point. If it is true that artists will happily work for nothing, what is the point of the elaborate "complements" defence? If those who oppose copyright feel sure that we will continue to get the books, movies and music we want without paying for it, why not just say so? Say it out loud: authors, musicians and moviemakers should work for nothing, or scratch around for "complements". Then we can have an honest debate.
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by LordLiverpool.
Riiight
"The real artists don't do it for the money. If they are doing it just for money, all it means is that they are greedy. If I couldn't make a living as a programmer, I would still do it on the side because I enjoy it."
Wanting to get paid means you're greedy? So you don't mind if your salary is reduced to zero then? I'll get in touch with your company right away, they'll be delighted with the cost saving, I'm sure.
I note how all these people who are, in essence, arguing that others should work for nothing are not, themselves, quite prepared to take that step.
The other point is that the anti-copyright argument always rests on the ability to sell items that are not copyable ("complements") rather than selling the item that is the primary source of value (which can't be sold because it's copyable and we cannot or do not want to enforce copyright). The flaw in this scheme is obvious. In a world where more and more goods are likely to be digitalised, you cannot charge for the item itself (meaning that the market price will be unrelated its value), but only for "complements". If these complements do not exist, the value of the item cannot be extracted from the consumer. If they do exist, their value will determine the market price. This is, at the least, a clear market distortion. There is, one assumes, some sort of relationship between the popularity of a band's music and, say, its t-shirt sales. The same could be said for concerts, but this conveniently ignores that fact that many great bands of the recording era made their best music in the studio, when they had stopped touring (anyone remember The Beatles?). But what about books? Once copyright on books is being systematically flouted and it is no longer possible to charge for them, what complements are authors supposed to sell? T-shirts? Autographs? There is a reason why, even today, many books are not available in electronic format, and that reason is piracy. If publishers are smart, they will continue to restrict digital availability of their works to closed devices such the Kindle. This is a clear cost imposed on us by piracy.
One last point. If it is true that artists will happily work for nothing, what is the point of the elaborate "complements" defence? If those who oppose copyright feel sure that we will continue to get the books, movies and music we want without paying for it, why not just say so? Say it out loud: authors, musicians and moviemakers should work for nothing, or scratch around for "complements". Then we can have an honest debate.