Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
It would push authors into being "performers" rather than "builders" who can easily keep selling what they've made; while I don't like that, I can accept that we could find a way to encourage them to keep making things. (Probably either by re-instituting something like copyright law, or coming up with a complex set of contracts about sales rights.)
|
I agree with this. Copyright is not a good or a bad thing, but it's not a workable solution in the digital age. I really don't think artists will be able to earn their living from charging for copies of their work in the way they do today. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but I believe it's inevitable.
Other ways of earning a living from intellectual property will be tried and tested until a balance is found that enables consumers and artists to get what they need and want.
The benefit will mostly go to the consumer - no DRM, freedom to copy, and cheap (if not free) content of all kinds (though most content will be produced at lower cost, so maybe no more blockbuster movies).
The artists will be forced to earn their living from secondary sources - advertising, live performances, book signings, etc.
When most people discuss this they get stuck on one side of the debate: either all IP should be free or the creators should be able to keep using an outdated business model. Both sides ignore the fact that supply and demand are symbiotic in nature.