Quote:
|
It wouldn't be called DRM, but it would work the same way: "here's some impediments to use to allow us to sell the same thing to someone else." Maybe it'd be called Digital Usage Restrictions or Digital Sales Restrictions. With no copyright, it'd be legal to crack--unless purchasing came with a contract that said you agreed not to, in which case the company could sue you for cracking it, but couldn't prevent other people from sharing the file after you'd handed it around.
|
Of course, if you make it that difficult for a content creator to make money out of his creation, then he might just stop creating altogether. He does have that option.
Quote:
|
Would still be record companies. Musicians still won't want the hassle of arranging studio time, learning the technical side of cutting tracks, contacting radio stations, arranging tours and so on.
|
Record companies do all that because they hope to make money off sales of content. If they can't do the latter, then there's no incentive for them to do the former. So, no record companies.
Quote:
|
Why couldn't theatres survive? They'd just need to pick movies that appeal to their local patrons--and without copyright getting in the way, that's a lot easier. They'd be able to show a lot more movies for shorter times, and schedule one-day movies to match local events. (The college is having Pride Week? We'll have a weekend marathon festival showing Milk, Priscilla Queen of the Desert, Kiss of the Spider Woman, Victor/Victoria, and Rocky Horror Picture Show. $8 per person per movie, and the ushers will check tickets between each showing.)
|
Movie theaters are already hurting because of competition from people staying home to watch movies on their 50" TVs. No copyright would be the final nail in their coffin.
Anyway, I would say that the discussion should really move from this thought experiment to a "better copyright". I would argue that we should also be talking about a better DRM, but that's verboten on this forum.