Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
I wondered how long it would be before this argument was made.
What it boils down to is......creators will always create. They do it because they feel the need, have something to say, to promote change and for many other reasons.
So if creators will always create regardless of payment.......why should we pay them?
And if they dare to admit that they would like to earn their living doing what they love and not have to work some other job then we can demean them by suggesting they are greedy capitalist pigs who should be happy to get a "real job" like the rest of us and create in their spare time if they really want to. If they are not willing to do so then we don't want their type of creation do we?
The supply side of the distribution model is moving towards post-scarcity. That is, data can be endlessly replicated at virtually no cost.
The supply side of the creation remains the same. That is, whilst everyone can pump out some trashy "novel", not everyone can turn out a novel worth reading.
The idea that there is no inherent value in the digital data totally disregards the time, effort and "scarcity" of the talent that went into creating it.
Of course it is up to each individual to decide for themselves if they are going to value someone elses work because it brings them joy in the reading or if they are going to deem it valueless simply because it can be copied easily.
Cheers,
PKFFW
|
I believe you're assigning to me wishes and motivations that I do not have. If anything, my arguments and assumptions are quite reserved. If I took my observations to their logical conclusions I'd have to say that there will be zero money in fiction within fifteen years, from any source and using any business models.
That taken into account, I don't believe I, or anyone else for that matter suggested that you can't 'try to make money', just that the old world models of making that money are diminishing and must be replaced with new models.
The time effort and 'scarcity' as you put it, of the authors endeavour cannot be gauged with the end product any longer. These metrics of value are subjective, unlike a physical book which has weight and substance and has inherent value as a physical object. I don't see why this is so hard to grasp. Bullet point time:
1. Digital objects cannot be locked down.
2. More and more people share digital objects.
3. Digital objects have a perceived value of zero and a near-to-zero cost to reproduce.
4. Writers must find ways to keep audiences and monetize their digital products.
Seems logical to me that any action taken to criminalize, ostracise or generally piss-off a potential digital audience is counter-productive, considering the list above. DRM, lawsuits, abrasive copyrights, lack of understanding of the file sharing world, all these factors will diminish any market you might want to cultivate and the monetization of that market.
Also, every single time we hear one of these file sharing=theft,
you're taking food off my table arguments, it just pegs the owner as some old codger and makes them tragically unhip to any new audience. Why would any writer want to shoot themselves in the foot like that, when their very livelihood might depend on building fan bases and working tightly within the communities they create?