5 ms·

Maybe you understood me, but what I meant to say was that if you were to watch something on youtube in lieu of going to the movie theater or watching it on TV,

by Splines 17y ago

Maybe you understood me, but what I meant to say was that if you were to watch something on youtube in lieu of going to the movie theater or watching it on TV, you would be not compensating an artist because of youtube's existence. It's a very optimistic view that people would compensate artists if it was a purely optional choice (not saying that it doesn't happen, but it requires a certain mix of artistic work, artist, and audience to make it happen). That said, it's not entirely the fault of the audience that they are now receiving works of "art" for free. The fact that technology has progressed to the point where duplication of content has become trivial cannot be ignored (whether or not it's right doesn't really change things). It's partially up to the content creators to seek compensation from the audience in new ways. Youtube, I think, is trying to enable this path, whether or not it's successful has yet to be seen. By no means do I think that people deserve compensation, but I do think that piracy has had an impact on content creators' livelihood.

kiba 17y ago
By no means do I think that people deserve compensation, but I do think that piracy has had an impact on content creators' livelihood. I would argue that pirates are market failure caused by government policies and intervention. They fill in the missing void of the distribution system. In a world without copyright law, publishing houses would learn very quick on how to starve these legal pirates very quick. This is exactly what happens to American publishers selling British books in the 19th century, as there were no copyright treaty with Britain back then. They would flood the market with cheap books, destroying much of the profit potential that could be garnered by legally pirating the books. This is good for Americans, because they can raise their literacy rate with the help of cheap books. The British authors also make money, sometime more than they do in their own country. Their business models consist of auctioning or selling the manuscript to the highest bidder. Even now, Americans publishers can make quite a bit money selling public domain books, often government book like the 9/11 commission report. Even so, I don't really care either way if a copyright-free world cause less books to appear, or more books to appears. If I want more books, I either download them or buy them. I see no reason to fret over what is ultimately a business model or entrepreneurship problem.
- driax 17y ago
  With ebooks coming out the cost of distribution of books drop to zero, leaving zero money in the hands of authors. Can't really see how we would do without something like copyright.
  - prodigal_erik 17y ago
    Patronage. http://www.schneier.com/paper-street-performer.html http://www.schneier.com/paper-street-performer.html. Work for hire. Nobody can copy a work you haven't made yet.
    - seertaak 17y ago
      Great -- so here he we are in the 21st century, with the wonderful new empowering technology that is the internet, and you're saying that as far as art is concerned, we should go back to the seventeenth century. Reality check: you can't finance or organize an album or single launch across 30+ countries using a patronage system. It just won't work. To claim patronage is the solution to the woes of the music and publishing industries is naive, I'm afraid.
      - prodigal_erik 17y ago
        Here we are in the 21st century, with the capacity to give every internet user complete unfettered access to an unimaginably vast library of literary and artistic work. But we refuse to do it, we impose restrictions on our tools to create completely artificial scarcity, solely because we're stuck on an 18th century business model for creators that barely worked when the printing press was novel and rare—and is now more of a lottery than a vocation.
- seertaak 17y ago
  > Even so, I don't really care either way if a copyright-free world cause less books to appear, or more books to appears. If I want more books, I either download them or buy them. I see no reason to fret over what is ultimately a business model or entrepreneurship problem. i.e. "Me, me, me, and screw everyone else."
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

by Splines 17y ago

kiba 17y ago

By no means do I think that people deserve compensation, but I do think that piracy has had an impact on content creators' livelihood. I would argue that pirates are market failure caused by government policies and intervention. They fill in the missing void of the distribution system. In a world without copyright law, publishing houses would learn very quick on how to starve these legal pirates very quick. This is exactly what happens to American publishers selling British books in the 19th century, as there were no copyright treaty with Britain back then. They would flood the market with cheap books, destroying much of the profit potential that could be garnered by legally pirating the books. This is good for Americans, because they can raise their literacy rate with the help of cheap books. The British authors also make money, sometime more than they do in their own country. Their business models consist of auctioning or selling the manuscript to the highest bidder. Even now, Americans publishers can make quite a bit money selling public domain books, often government book like the 9/11 commission report. Even so, I don't really care either way if a copyright-free world cause less books to appear, or more books to appears. If I want more books, I either download them or buy them. I see no reason to fret over what is ultimately a business model or entrepreneurship problem.

driax 17y ago
With ebooks coming out the cost of distribution of books drop to zero, leaving zero money in the hands of authors. Can't really see how we would do without something like copyright.
- prodigal_erik 17y ago
  Patronage. http://www.schneier.com/paper-street-performer.html http://www.schneier.com/paper-street-performer.html. Work for hire. Nobody can copy a work you haven't made yet.
  - seertaak 17y ago
    Great -- so here he we are in the 21st century, with the wonderful new empowering technology that is the internet, and you're saying that as far as art is concerned, we should go back to the seventeenth century. Reality check: you can't finance or organize an album or single launch across 30+ countries using a patronage system. It just won't work. To claim patronage is the solution to the woes of the music and publishing industries is naive, I'm afraid.
    - prodigal_erik 17y ago
      Here we are in the 21st century, with the capacity to give every internet user complete unfettered access to an unimaginably vast library of literary and artistic work. But we refuse to do it, we impose restrictions on our tools to create completely artificial scarcity, solely because we're stuck on an 18th century business model for creators that barely worked when the printing press was novel and rare—and is now more of a lottery than a vocation.
seertaak 17y ago
> Even so, I don't really care either way if a copyright-free world cause less books to appear, or more books to appears. If I want more books, I either download them or buy them. I see no reason to fret over what is ultimately a business model or entrepreneurship problem. i.e. "Me, me, me, and screw everyone else."

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]