Quote:
Originally Posted by Format C:
2. Digital "media" has a value, OK. It's digtal "copy" which does not. To fully get out of the "old model" you have to erase the whole idea of "copy". It's not a matter of supply and demand. It's just the fact that "copies" do not exist.
I pay for media. I pay my computer, my connection, my ebook reader, the elecrtical power to keep them going... Digital media has definitely a value and it's not free at all.
OTOH, digital copy is valueless. How much do you pay for the "Copy" you create in RAM when you open your book? Are you stealing from the author?
The value is mostly in the content, and then in the medium, like it always have been. In this "new model", a "copy" does not correspond to a "new instance of the medium".
|
Ok then, I think we have to get past the idea that the "copy" has no value. If not then people will feel that the thing they want(ie: the copy) has no value and therefore they shouldn't have to pay anything at all for it.
And yes there is a difference between fair use copying(copying the file so your wife/GF/BF/best mate/few close friends/whatever in that like) and uploading the file for the entire internet connected world to have access to free of charge. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with fair use. I am saying that there is something wrong with sharing the file with the entire internet connected world free of charge and against the authors wishes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Format C
4. Authors: nobody should expect to be paid just for having put some words on a page. I did it, and the crap I wrote wasn't published, and I din't make a penny. Will you pay me? I don't think so.
Authors have to be paid, as long as they do a good job. The better the writing, the higher the reward. That would be fair!
As of now, bad authors in bad TV shows make more money than good authors with good blogs...
So, I'm completely in favour of a meritocratic reward method.
 |
Firstly, I think Harry's reply sums up my point of view.
Having said that, I wouldn't mind some sort of meritocratic reward too but who would decide what has merit and what doesn't? Many would argue Dan Brown's work has no merit yet millions upon millions have gotten enjoyment from his work. Should he be paid less than someone who is deemed to have merit but only a few hundred or a thousand people have ever read?
Cheers,
PKFFW