Quote:
Originally Posted by nairbv
by trenien's logic, it's also "work" (and pays the artist once) if I go to the CD shop, buy a CD for $10 (I have no idea what CD's cost, I'm just guessing), buy CD manufacturing equipment, print up thousands of copies, and sell them across the country outside CD shops for 3$ each. Do you really think this won't cost the artist any money? (maybe we have to change the time setting to like 10 years ago since people don't actually go to CD stores nowadays anyways do they?)
|
No, it is different: however low the price you set your copies, anyone who bought one is orders of magnitudes less likely to buy one than they would if they'd only downloaded it.
That's what people against sharing don't understand. Since humanity is humanity, the sharing of ideas (in the largest sense) with one you call friend has been done as naturally as sharing a few songs around a campfire. For a brief period of time, these ideas have been assimilated with their medium - hence the belief they could be property when in fact it's the physical medium itself that was property, not what it contained.
Now, with the advent of the digital age, that era of confusion is at an end.
Quote:
|
It really doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. The money has to come from somewhere. If a thousand people want a book, and get it from one pirated copy, the author gets paid once. If everyone who wants the book pays, then the author gets paid a thousand times.
|
Do we really need to go over this again? Contrary to the propaganda poured by the RIAA and the like, one download doesn't equal one lost sale, both because the person downloading whatever may not have bought it anyway, and because that download may be the reason for one sale.
Quote:
|
I'd rather live in a world where there was financial motivation for people to produce intellectual works.
|
Fact: even if they get no monetary compensation, people will keep producing intellectual work, period.
If I were to take a cynical stance, I'd simply just say to let the system crumble to ruins the way it's headed now; if the various actors in it keep their foolishness, that's exactly what's going to happen.
Although it's hard, I try not to be a cynic. So I will keep arguing for a system similar to that of the Creative Commons. I honestly think this is the best way to go, and the best way for people to keep making a living producing intellectual work. Sure, with such a system your chances to become a multimillionaire the way J.K. Rowlings did are pretty much nil, but on the other hand it could support a greater number of people.