Quote:
Originally Posted by ahi
So... they were wrong all the other times, but this time they're right?
Phew... I was worried they were going to be wrong again!
---
More seriously, Bill, while you make good points, I cannot see piracy as hurting the literary world or the music world or the art world, et cetera, given how art and literature thrived (and probably yielded greater quality, if vastly lesser quantity) prior to the base commercialization of both.
|
Most art that we remember has been done for profit for quite a long time. Obviously it is hard to be sure when it started exactly, but the Stain Glass and sculptures in the Cathedrals of Europe was not done without paying craftsmen. Likewise, the great painters and sculptors of the Italian Renaissance did not work unless they did so on commission. Shakespeare did not write for fun either.
Further, I am not at all sure that we have sacrificed quality in return for quantity. Yes, we are bombarded today with many low quality creative works, but I suspect the same was true in Shakespeare's day... the difference is we don't remember the low quality works of 300 years ago. Would the 19th century have allowed Mark Twain or Charles Dickens to thrive without any form of copyright (While it is true that his copyrights were not recognized in the United States, it was the recognition of them in England that allowed Dickens to get his start as an author)? Likewise, it seems unlikely that Hemingway, Steinbeck, Fitzgerald and many of the other literary lights of the 20th century would have been possible in a world where they could not have supported themselves on their writing.
Quote:
The companies raking in all the money therefrom are hurting, sure, but I see no chance of the people outputting creative works disappearing off the face of the earth as long as there are people, no matter how unprofitable it may become. And, unlike some, I am not convinced those people automatically deserve freedom from (sometimes) mind-numbing daily toil (i.e.: a day job) that too much of the rest of humanity has to contend with.
- Ahi
|
Yes there will probably continue to be people who will make creative works. But will the quality remain as high? After all, how many people will have the opportunity to spend months or years working on a novel to get it just right if there is no chance to profit from it? Having professional artists allows them to spend time honing their craft that the amateur hardly ever has.
Also, lets not forget that copyright protects many of us who do have "day jobs". While most software engineers may not own the copyright for the software they create, it is because they essentially sell the work they do to the company that employs them. If companies can't profit off the work that their software engineers perform, there may not be jobs for those engineers (Yes there is the free software movement, but those work because the companies can sell support for the software -- not every application can work under that model).
Finally of course, that freedom from "day jobs" that you are referring to is because the author is successful at what they do. People want to read their books, listen to their music, watch their videos etc. If a person worked hard to create something, and people want to use it, why shouldn't the creator be allowed to profit from it?
--
Bill