Quote:
Originally Posted by djgreedo
Digital reproductions have no value. There is a difference. It costs nothing to copy an ebook 1 million times. This doesn't mean the original copy is valueless, but the value is intellectual rather than physical.
|
The value, I would argue, is in the reading of the book and not in the 1's and 0's. To claim the copy is valueless is just plain wrong in my opinion. If it was truly valueless then there would be no desire to read the book at all. The person who wants to read the book must place some value on doing so otherwise they wouldn't want to read it.
Just because they can get it for free doesn't mean it is valueless to them. Why should they not be required to pay some fair price for the priviledge?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by djgreedo
Subscriptions wouldn't mean nothing because you would presumably pay up front for content not yet created. If they payments stop, the content stops being made available.
|
If the mindset of "it's digital so it is valueless" becomes the norm then people will see all digital media as valueless. How can you convince someone to pay for something they deem valueless, even if they are doing so only as a way of supporting their selfish belief they have a right to that something for free.
That is why I say subscriptions would mean nothing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by djgreedo
People want to create art/content, and people want to consume it. A way will develop to accommodate this.
|
I totally agree. I just don't think the way forward is to claim that all digital media is valueless and therefore should be given away for free.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by djgreedo
I doubt quantity will decrease, but quality probably will. Perhaps with so much amateur free content out there people will turn to paying for what they percieve must be better quality.
|
But it's digital and therefore valueless right? So who is going to pay for something if it is valueless? I don't know of anyone willing to pay for something they determine has no value.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by djgreedo
I'm not sure anyone is asking for content to be free or complaining about paying for ebooks.
|
Many have done both.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by djgreedo
Would people buy McDonald's burgers if we all had Star Trek food replicators that could instantly create any food we wanted (including McDonald's burgers) at negligible cost? I doubt it.
|
What if only McDonalds had the code necessary to make the replicator create that burger? Then if someone wanted the burger, if they deemed it has some value to them, they would pay for the code in order to get the burger right?
It is no different to writing. If we could all write our own fantastic stories, stories that delight and amaze us even though we were the ones who wrote them, then would we ever pay someone else to write one we could read? But we can't can we? So why should we expect someone else to take the time to write that story for us and give it to us for free?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by djgreedo
Regardless of the moral implications, it is impossible to prevent access to free digital content. DRM doesn't work. There is a huge shift in thinking for the upcoming generations. Digital copies are worthless if the original can be reproduced infinitely with no cost to anybody.
|
I Absolutely agree it is impossible to prevent free access to digital content. That is not in debate at all.
What we can prevent is the idea that because it is digital it has no value. As Hans said, value is what we make it. We can spread the idea that an author has rights too. We can spread the idea that if we wish to get the value of reading a digital copy of a book then we should do the honourable thing, respect the authors rights and pay a fair and equitable price for said value. Or we can keep going with the idea that "I can get it for free therefore I have the right to do so and to heck with the author".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by djgreedo
Our values are rooted in physical items having worth. Intellectual property is harder to regulate; add digital into the mix and it becomes essentially impossible to regulate.
So artists and publishers have few choices:
1) Try to transfer the physical supply/demand/control model to the digital age
2) Accept that there is no feasible way of continuing the old model and adapt to the market forces.
|
Yep, and we as consumers have a few choices too.
1: Keep going with the idea that our rights trump the creators rights. That we are entitled to free access to all digital media for no other reason than we want it.
2: Decide that the creators rights should be respected, that a creative work(even a digital copy of one) does have value if we choose to assign it a value and work with authors in seeking out a balance which allows for a fair and equitable exchange to take place.
I know which I think is the way to go, which do you think is?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by djgreedo
It may be disasterous for authors, but that is a moral objection, not a fact-based one. When every book/movie/TV show/ album is available at your fingertips at no percieved cost how do you make people pay? That question is for the artists and publishers to answer, and they'd better hurry up.
|
Why is it only for the artists to decide?(I left out publishers because I am not advocating the old ways and could care less about them)
Why is it not also the consumers to answer? Why should consumers just merrily go on their way believing the have every right to access a creative work for free just because they deem the digital copy to be valueless?(disregarding the fact that that whole concept is a fallacy used to support their belief and nothing else)
Cheers,
PKFFW