Quote:
Originally Posted by spellbanisher
Every new advance in technology has created a moral panic--that this technology represented an imminent threat to the creative industry. The movie projector was supposed to be the end of live performance (revenues for theatre performance are greater than revenues for Hollywood ticket sales), radio and CDs were supposed to destroy the music industry (instead they created opportunities for more artists to make a living), video recorders and cable were supposed to destroy the movie industry (if you believe Jack Valenti), and now the internet is the creative content apocalypse, even though the entertainment industry consistently outperforms the overall economy, in spite of the fact that wages are falling and consumers desire to save more.
|
Those other forms of media had methods of ensuring profit: Theatres still must be physically attended, and people can't just walk in off the street to see a show, so you have ticket sales for profit (and thanks to TV, commercials for those who watch at home); radio found profit in advertising to subsidize the broadcasts; VCR tapes sold pre-recorded media with more advertising subsidies, and blanks kicked back a few cents to the media industries at each sale.
The internet situation is very different: There are no subsidies for content creators, and there are no tools in place to keep people away from content they want (at least, nothing that works well). If content like ebooks had a guaranteed source of profit, like ad subsidies, govt subsidies, or ways to keep freeloaders from accessing content without paying, copyright would quite possibly not be needed at all.
Since ebooks and other digital content don't have these things, we need copyright laws to provide them.