4 ms·

If copyright law stopped existing, and authors could no longer be compensated for what they'd made Haven't we already established that this is a red herring in

If copyright law stopped existing, and authors could no longer be compensated for what they'd made Haven't we already established that this is a red herring in light of all the content that people create for no money every day? I'd provide a list, but reminding people of this just gets exhausting. Just because some people wouldn't consider it worthwhile to create because they don't get paid doesn't mean that creation would stop, it just means that the stuff that gets created by people who don't see a need in getting paid would rise to increased prominence and be recognized as such.

nailer 16y ago
> it just means that the stuff that gets created by people who don't see a need in getting paid would rise to increased prominence and be recognized as such. Direct payment is still the best option to make money from creativity. Things made for free reward their authors in other ways; * sponsorship payments * promotion of the authors (common with short films) * raising awareness of issues * promoting subsequent paid sequels (eg, NIN) As anyone who's run a website known, it's a lot harder to fund a business with these models than with direct payment. If direct payment for works was no longer an option, the current non-direct providers would struggle with an influx of high quality, well funded competitors. * Independent, low budget musicians would have to compete for sponsorship and venues with established acts suddenly doing gigs for free. * Indie gamewriters would have to compete for cash against giant game companies with high-end 3D engines giving away the latest games with in-game ads. * Authors that write books and companies that do training courses might just give up completely, and not write books, since ads don't work very well for OReilly. * OSS companies that give away their source and sell a binary compilation and update services would have to find a business model. TPB is already making these things happen today. That's why people who make things know they're bad.

nailer 16y ago

> it just means that the stuff that gets created by people who don't see a need in getting paid would rise to increased prominence and be recognized as such. Direct payment is still the best option to make money from creativity. Things made for free reward their authors in other ways; * sponsorship payments * promotion of the authors (common with short films) * raising awareness of issues * promoting subsequent paid sequels (eg, NIN) As anyone who's run a website known, it's a lot harder to fund a business with these models than with direct payment. If direct payment for works was no longer an option, the current non-direct providers would struggle with an influx of high quality, well funded competitors. * Independent, low budget musicians would have to compete for sponsorship and venues with established acts suddenly doing gigs for free. * Indie gamewriters would have to compete for cash against giant game companies with high-end 3D engines giving away the latest games with in-game ads. * Authors that write books and companies that do training courses might just give up completely, and not write books, since ads don't work very well for OReilly. * OSS companies that give away their source and sell a binary compilation and update services would have to find a business model. TPB is already making these things happen today. That's why people who make things know they're bad.