Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow
It seems to be human nature to use the 'wrong's done to us, to justify doing 'wrong' back - it's the motivation behind DRM after all.
|
No, the motivation behind DRM is to try and keep "scarcity" in the equation.
Since stuff which can be copied without loss of quality can be multiplied indefinitely, scarcity is no longer there. What most people here seem to be suggesting is that authoring + publishing should become more of a "busking" type of job: You play your instrument at the street corner and hope someone will throw in a dime.
People walking by, not interested in the music, probably won't pay. But people standing there for hours, listening and enjoying the music, can also simply walk away without paying. In fact, it's perfectly OK to record this music, go home, and put MP3s of it on the internet so people can download it from home and feel even
less bad about not paying.
I'm not sure I want to be in the "spend several years + several thousand dollars, then hold up your hand and hope for the best" business. I bet this is what is keeping
most publishers away from a digital, DRM-free distribution model. Especially because the consensus seems to be that there is no moral obligation to pay anything whatsoever. If there's not even a
moral obligation, then why the heck should they expect
anything?
But, as others have noted: People keep simply re-iterating their points of view, and keep justifying their actions. Even 13 pages deep into the discussion, people
still claim that publishers take 92% of the proceeds. I give up.
Happy new year to all of you, regardless :-)