Quote:
Originally Posted by queentess
Very interesting point, this:
Quote:
|
6: If everybody did illegally download, it couldn't continue as a practice, because no further music or movies could be made. (Except by those willing, through existing wealth or poetic poverty, not to make a living.) Illegal downloaders rely, parasitically, on an honest mainstream who purchase this stuff. The 'alternative revenue sources' that might fund every creator who's not already rich enough not to care simply haven't appeared for the vast majority. And it's hard to see where they'll ever come from when a dearth of illegal downloading can simply put an end to a market.
|
|
That's probably true with movies. But at the same time, most of the money made by musicians is from live shows/concerts, not song sales.
Still, I think the thing is nowadays the cost of entry for making stuff is really quite low. Want to make music? You don't even need an instrument or recording studio any more. All you need is a computer. Or maybe even just an iPhone.
Speaking of that, that's really had an impact on the game industry. Big companies are having trouble with charging $40 for a game on a portable (like PSP or DS) when someone else can make a clone (or something similar) on the iPhone for 99 cents.
A lot of people do creative stuff, like make music, movies or write because they want to be famous. Or enjoy it. Not because they want to be rich (which is all too rare).
Even if they don't make much money off of it, they'd continue to do it. Look at Shakespeare - he didn't have any copyright laws protecting his work, but he wrote and wrote and wrote. Indeed, back then plagiarizing work was sort of the norm. Or borrowing.
So I guess my point is, I'm not sure this would be a bad thing. Might end up boosting live theater over movies. Stephen King and Dan Brown might stop writing. No more auto-tune pop star of the year.