[Dusty Bottoms]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Guess what? The world isn't Sesame Street. There isn't enough of everything to go around. Sharing doesn't work when there are too many people, and not enough supplies. That's why there is commerce, and money, and property, and society... a collective of people agreeing to a system that manages what they have as fairly as possible.

The internet is boundless though, and if you'd cared to read what I actually wrote, does not conform to the supply side economics that we have in the analog world. There is no end to supplies, they are limitless and without end. Abundant. Post-scarce.

That's why creators often need financial incentives to create, instead of simply plugging away at their day jobs and creating nothing at all. That's why copyright laws are in existence... they address a basic fact of practical, real life. I'm not saying that social or financial experimentation isn't worth trying, or might not succeed. I'm simply pointing out the stark reality, like it or not, of where our last few millennia of social and financial experimentation, when set alongside human nature, has gotten us.

And I am saying that creators create in all kinds of economies for all kinds of reasons. When Solzhenitzyn wrote Cancer Ward or The Gulag Archipelgo, I would reckon the impetus wasn't 'putting food on the table' (horrible phrase) but because he had something to say and wanted to say it. People will create even if that means they are killed because of that creation. This low level, capitalistic drive that is far more prevalent in North America than anywhere else, is not universal. In Europe a lot of art and creativity is subsidsed or unpaid, local theater being only one example...art galleries etc. And again, as per what others have said in this thread, the copyright law we have now in it's abused and useless form, means nothing to the audience and even less to individual creators who cannot defend the copyright without access to expensive laywers.

You mention that Genies don't go back in bottles. I agree: You're trying to suggest that some basic tenets of society and human nature will somehow reverse themselves and go away, thanks to modern technology; and I say that despite our technology, people haven't changed significantly in a few hundred thousand years, and the basic laws of society haven't changed in over 5,000 years.

I'd suggest you look at what is happening, not what you think is happening. Technology has enhanced our interaction, removed barriers to sharing, encouraged co-operation, knowledge and the sharing of that knowledge across the board. We have changed drastically over 5,000 years, and our interactions with the internet are evolving rapidly into realms as yet uncharted by human history. There is no precedence (apart from, maybe, the Anarchistic communes in the Spain of the 1930's, but done on virtual, and ever expansive 'land' called the internet).

The economics of the digital age are certainly different, but not that different. And society has demands that sometimes outweigh what is possible, forcing it to adhere to what is practical. It is that practicality which is at issue here: The practicality of making sure creators create, and are treated fairly when they do, so society can enjoy the fruits of their labors. It takes more than simply saying we'll do it... we have to put laws in place to guarantee it, since we know that without those laws, creators are taken advantage of (a historical fact).

No, we are seeing a fundamental shift in economics in the digital era. From scarcity to post scarcity. When the supply side of the economic equation is removed, then the suggested Economic laws of supply and demand no longer works as it should. The markets we see now are building on good will and community.

Again we come to the why of creation. Everyone creates. Everyone, there is no exception to this. The onus is on you as a creator to monetize that creation, not society, and certainly not through the inclusion of intrusive laws that restrict freedoms. Laws, may I add, that the internet will merely circumnavigate and ignore.


And if you think copyright laws somehow protect the abuse of creators, then I'm not sure what to tell you. Every mainstream publisher abuses creators at a level that would get them investigate almost everywhere else. 5-10% after a paltry advance, come on. Copyright has done nothing for creators in teh last fifty years and everything for corporations. Pre-digital age you might have had a chance, but not much of one. In the digital age, copyright is just smoke and mirrors.

And since those laws have been enacted, we have seen greater innovation, cooperation and development than at any other point in history. I take that as clear and indisputable proof of a system that works.

So, debate the finer points of copyright if you will. But the system does work. The digital realm will writhe like a released demon for some period of time, but eventually, it too will have to find its niche in the current system... and will introduce some adjustments to better fit its existence there... and again, one day we'll hardly be able to remember a period where anarchy ruled the Internet.

The system works in an analog world, and then only if you accept some of its more glaring faults. In a digital world it has to change, as does everything. We're at the stage now where everything is free or near to free if you want it to be. There is no precedence for this, none at all. The way in which you react, adapt, will chart the future.