3 ms·
> As it becomes easier for people to get stuff without paying for it, production of said stuff will drop. And so what? The "said stuff" is mainly quality-inver
by wazoox 16y ago
> As it becomes easier for people to get stuff without paying for it, production of said stuff will drop.
And so what? The "said stuff" is mainly quality-inversely-proportional-to-budget music and movies. We needn't them anyway.
- chwahoo 16y agoThere are many people folks who enjoy the summer blockbuster more than an art-house flick. I would be pretty sad if the options in music, movies, software, and books became severely limited because the system could no longer compensate the creators.
- _delirium 16y agoIf people aren't willing to voluntarily pay for it, I think the free market has spoken, that it doesn't value the summer blockbuster.
- chwahoo 16y agoI'm not sure what you are arguing. I was invoking the free market in support of blockbusters. People pay to watch big-budget movies in droves. The free market suggests the creation of blockbusters (particularly sequels) and not art-house films (with occasional exceptions). I'd bet the black market values blockbusters pretty highly too. However the easier it gets to pirate, the more people will do so and the incentive to create these movies will evaporate.
- tzs 16y agoIf that were true, then we'd expect the big budget stuff to be among the least pirated, not the most pirated.
- wazoox 16y agoThat is unrelated IMO. People have to choose what to spend their money on; marketing (and perhaps social) pressure tends to incite people to see films that are much too often not worth their price; ergo they prefer to pirate them and spend their good money on more useful stuff.