Quote:
Originally Posted by ApK
Are you one of those people that thinks that repeating your opinion is the same thing as making an argument?
It makes sense because it works. It's familiarity gives it broad acceptance and understanding. That has enabled it to be instantly and widely implemented and has allowed it to be the mechanism for the development and growth of a huge amount of content, and for the growth of the economy and the standard of living, spreading from the developed world out.
It makes sense because as a society of law and reason, we CAN assign a value to the rights of access even if there is no natural tie to scarcity.
And, if you MUST bring scarcity into it for some reason (which you seem to claim to understand that we need not do), it still works because you can work in, as variable in the value calculation, the very limited and irreplaceable time that human being have available to them that they spend to create the intellectual property that we are selling access to.
And it also makes sense because the resources used to market, distribute and otherwise manage the content are indeed finite.
That's why it make sense.
Now, can you tell me why you think it doesn't? Can you come up with a better model, and way to get it broadly accepted?
Or do you just want to repeat your opinion again?
ApK
|
Are you one of those people who thinks that being shrill and condescending is the same thing as making an argument?
You say, "It makes sense because it works." That's a logical fallacy known as begging the question (which is to say that the conclusion of the argument is contained in one of its premises). It might "work" in the sense that publishers make money, but since treating a theoretically unlimited good as if it were perishable and limited is illogical, I can't help but think that another system might "work" better.
I think part of the problem is that publishers are an outdated concept when it comes to digital goods. Authors used to need publishers simply because printing and distributing a physical book is prohibitively expensive for most people, but it's a different story when an author can sell directly to consumers, and ebooks are cheap and easy to make and distribute. The only reason people even care about "used" ebooks (as nonsensical as that concept is) is because ebooks sold through the obsolete publisher model are overpriced.
Maybe we can take some lessons from the PC gaming industry which has enthusiastically embraced digital distribution and all but eschewed physical media. Steam, I think, is a good model for the future of digital books, where small and independent developers can gain broad exposure while avoiding the overhead typically associated with the traditional publisher model. As a result, their wares are considerably cheaper and more attractive to consumers. Who cares about buying "used" when you can buy new for a small fraction of the price of the big publisher offerings?