Quote:
Originally Posted by ApK
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, (for the great majority this is untrue)
in spite of the fact that all books of note are instantly pirated even with DRM, (doesn't matter for the great majority)
in spite of the fact that there is no consumer demand FOR DRM, (but there is a demand for good books from good authors that can make a living producing good books)
in spite of the fact that some are AGAINST DRM, (There are always those who want my cash drawer left open.)
and in spite of the fact that many publishers and authors are doing fine making money without DRM, (Well bless them for charitable works and drop a coin in the hat for their supper.)
that DRM is effective or necessary in helping authors as described. (I choose to like DRM and feel good about it.)
ApK
|
My markings above:
dark blue for what I speak to.
bolded what I say.
((I corrected grammar and wording one place.))