Quote:
Originally Posted by ScalyFreak
Translation: Art that is freely available for anyone to appreciate, is worthless.
That's a very simple way of looking at things.
|
I don't think it translates that way. We don't have a hugely viable patron system, and we still need to earn a living.
I would only translate it as: if we want artists to be able to spend their time and energy producing art, we need ensure they can earn a living doing it. And in a market economy, that involves a market price. "Don't give away your talent" was advice from the first newspaper photo editor I worked for.
He didn't mean "never....don't give gifts or charity or serve the greater good."
He meant "If you don't think of your work as valuable, others won't either."
My problem with frahse's position, and I'm sure he does echo the opinion of many, is where is the evidence that DRM helps in this way? What is that belief founded on? I just don't see it. I see evidence that it DOESN'T work.
It's one thing to say that "Big publisher X requires DRM, and I want to be published by X, so I will use DRM."
It's quite another to say that
in spite of the fact that DRM can be trivially bypassed,
in spite of the fact that all books of note are instantly pirated even with DRM,
in spite of the fact that there is no consumer demand FOR DRM,
in spite of the fact that is some AGAINST DRM,
and in spite of the fact that many publishers and authors are doing fine making money without DRM,
that DRM is effective or necessary in helping authors as described.
ApK