Quote:
Originally Posted by Moejoe
Again you cite another example of a real-world thing, and in this case it doesn't even make sense. Sure you can photocopy things, but it costs money, lots of money. You're paying for toner, electricity, the machine, the paper. You can't compare a photocopier to the copying of a digital object. Not now, not ever. Doesn't work, can't work. The photocopier is ruled by the laws of scarcity, whereas the digital file has no scarcity.
|
Umm.. OK, so on the one hand you have the Mona Lisa. Pretty high on the scarcity front. On the other hand I can walk round the corner to a copy shop and pay a couple of quid for a pretty good colour reproduction. In the case of a photographic print, the quality can be extremely close, if not indistinguishable from the original. By your use of the term 'scarcity', the photocopy costs a tiny, tiny fraction of the value of the original. It has almost non-existent scarcity. How is that different, apart from in your head?
Regardless, scarcity is a piece of misdirection on your part. Scarcity doesn't dictate the value of creative works. Harry Potter books don't cost 5p because they've printed fifteen billion of them. Your £4 that you pay to see a movie largely comes down to the cost of filming it, not the cost of building the cinema - by your logic cinemas are scarce and expensive to build, so we should be paying a hundred times over for the privilege of going there.
One digital copy or a billion doesn't change the cost of production, nor does it change the value someone might assign to being entertained for however many hours it takes to read the book. We pay for the creative work, not the effort of cutting down a tree and scribbling on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moejoe
You can agree to disagree, but you're wrong on every argument you've put forth. Wrong about the technology, wrong in your analogies, wrong about the economics. Your reaction is emotional and is clouded by your initial, and erroneous assumption that copying = theft. The MAFIAAA want you to believe that, their whole corrupt existence rests upon your believing that lie.
|
No emotion here - I work in this area and see the possibilities and problems that digital distribution introduces. I'm fairly pragmatic about it, but disappointed that digital copying is seen as a 'victimless crime', when it is having a very definite effect on the creative landscape.
Talking of which, I was reading this week about Lilly Allen's decision to quit music after producing two very well received albums. Her take is that she cannot make a living from music when the vast majority of her fans get digital copies rather than buying the album legitimately. She toured like crazy this summer, but it appears not enough. If we can ignore whether or not her music is any good, how do you feel about that?
I guess you could say there will be half a dozen new artists to fill her shoes, willing to release their first album for free just to get the exposure. What happens when they come to record their second or third album, but cannot justify doing something for free when it has become their career?