Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenophon
Consider what would happen, for example, if those of us who 'foolishly' continue to pay for content were to join you on the "pirate" side of the argument. The existing system melts down. (I hear you cheering!) But if you succeed in melting down the existing system without finding some alternate means for compensating creators, what you'll get won't be the "best outcome possible" that you are hoping for! Rather, you'll get a vast decrease in the output of those creators, if only because they're spending more of their time earning a living via other means! Or you'll get things like the fascinating case of Sir Walter Scott, whose finances were destroyed (largely) by pirate copies of his books. He died penniless, while simultaneously being the best-selling author in Europe! Incentives like that do not encourage production of content, IMHO. That would be one way to lose.
|
That's assumming that we need new content produced at the rate at which it's produced today, and that keeping it at this rate is a good thing. Judging by the number of people here that prefer books released years ago to newest bestsellers, and by my own experience with reading, I'm not convinced that current rate of production of new content is good. Perhaps it would be more beneficial to all of us if we got a little less new books to read - and more of those books produced because the author wanted to write them for something more than just money.