> So we are left to deal with why piracy occurs. Outside of skinflints who
> don't want to pay for something, and spoiled brats who think that
> everything should be free, you have a core audience of the economically
> disadvantaged that the first two groups piggyback on. Perhaps with the
> expansion of micropayment schemes, there could also be instituted a sort
> of micro-financial aid, where those on public assistance and those in
> school would get a hefty discount or even waived fees in electronic
> music distribution. Instituting such a program would eliminate much of
> the piracy propaganda, while at the same time attaching a stigma to
> getting 'free music', which would imply that you are on an economic low
> rung, something that peer pressure concious youths try very hard to
> avoid.
Who are you and what have you done with Michael Lorrey? Immigrants
create a low-trust market? Public assistance for music? Big
corporations taking advantage of poor artists?
You seem to have some disdain for those who "want something for
nothing", so why doesn't that apply to the artists as well--why
are they entitled to _continue_ getting paid royalties long after
their creative work is done? Do I have to pay Kirk Gibson every
time I watch him hit that home run? If an artists is paid to
create something, why is that (plus getting paid for live
performances and whatever other work he can get) not enough? Why
must he use the force of law to extort more money from everyone who
might benefit from his work, when he is not doing anything more?
What's different about "creative" work than any other kind of
ordinary work that it deserves continued payment after-the-fact?
I know the standard justification is that without that payment-
after-the-fact, there will be insufficient incentive to produce.
I just don't buy it. How do you measure "sufficient" incentive?
What's enough, and what's too much? Lots of great art got produced
before copyrights, and lots of money is made today despite P2P
software.
To me, the only thing different about creative work is precisely
that it _can_ be reproduced at near-zero cost. Therefore, it does
make sense for artists and inventors to enter into contracts that
ensure that their initial payment is commensurate with the value
of the work--that's a difficult thing to do in some cases (like
speculative research). That's what we should be talking about
here--what methods can artists and inventors use--given the real
state of technology, not reliance on old laws that don't fit the
technology--to make enough money to keep them creating? And that
should have the added benefit that those artists whose work is
_not_ sufficiently valuable to earn a living absent present law
will go into more productive lines of work.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:17 MDT