Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Old Neon
But you offered it as a morally superior alternative to purchasing DRM protected material.
Here’s a little fact, given that our lives are finite. we don’t actually “own” anything, up to and including ourselves. At best, nature has allotted us each a brief period of time in which to experience existence, when that time is up, we die, and all the stuff we’ve accumulated stays here. We may pass it on to future generations, but they in turn will expire as well – as will the planet and every recorded human achievement. Why get so hung up on ownership?
But while we’re here, just like anyone else who provides a service, the artists who create and charge for their art deserve to be compensated – DRM or no DRM.
I’ve asked the following question numerous times and I’ve yet to receive a response, if all the middlemen standing between the artist and their customers were removed, so that art was sold directly to the public via the artists website, would it prevent people from visiting file-sharing networks? I keep hearing that DRM is evil, and in some ways, I agree, but I’ve yet to hear how removing it would drastically alter the illegal downloading of copyrighted materials.
|
It won't, period. Nothing will. Copyright was created by technology - The printing press - and is dying by technology - free digital copying (whether by the internet or sneakernet). You may not like it,
I may not like it, but it
is. But setting back the clock is not a option, whether to the pre-digital age, or back to hand-illuminated manuscripts and skalds. The only thing, in the long term, copyright holders will have to offer is
convenience. People have alway been willing to pay for convenience. If you want to make money through artistic creativity, plan accordingly.