3 ms·

I'm confused by this response. We live in a world with copyright and so creators have a say and copying information cannot be done at will, yet what you descri

I'm confused by this response. We live in a world with copyright and so creators have a say and copying information cannot be done at will, yet what you describe did not come to pass: Spotify exists, etc. Did it sound like I was advocating that creators be compensated for every last copy? That would not make sense: copyright holders can and do license content to allow such usage, and of course copyright law itself allows for copying under certain circumstances.

pjc50 9y ago
Spotify only exists at the price it does because piracy exists. It's a compromise price that takes enough people out of the piracy scene. At the rates for on-demand streaming that the labels were demanding in the early 2000s, a Spotify subscription would be several hundred dollars. As recently as 2012 someone was charged $9,250 per song download in punitive damages. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/minnesota-woman-ordered-to-pay-222-000-in-music-piracy-case-20120912 https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/minnesota-woman-orde...
- rectang 9y ago
  Well, until creators of commercially viable content get offered a better deal, they'll remain allied to the establishment copyright middlemen and will continue trying to make life difficult for the upstarts. Better to be exploited than to be decimated. I hope for a future where the innovators in this space do find ways to reward creators. (Patreon is a good start, and maybe there's hope in the blockchain.) That might actually win powerful allies as commercially viable content authors migrate, and the long-hoped-for disempowerment of the current copyright middlemen comes within reach. I don't see that happening when content creators are treated as acceptable collateral damage in the war to found an "information wants to be free" utopia, though. It will have to be a different faction that successfully negotiates the alliance.

pjc50 9y ago

Spotify only exists at the price it does because piracy exists. It's a compromise price that takes enough people out of the piracy scene. At the rates for on-demand streaming that the labels were demanding in the early 2000s, a Spotify subscription would be several hundred dollars. As recently as 2012 someone was charged $9,250 per song download in punitive damages. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/minnesota-woman-ordered-to-pay-222-000-in-music-piracy-case-20120912 https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/minnesota-woman-orde...

rectang 9y ago
Well, until creators of commercially viable content get offered a better deal, they'll remain allied to the establishment copyright middlemen and will continue trying to make life difficult for the upstarts. Better to be exploited than to be decimated. I hope for a future where the innovators in this space do find ways to reward creators. (Patreon is a good start, and maybe there's hope in the blockchain.) That might actually win powerful allies as commercially viable content authors migrate, and the long-hoped-for disempowerment of the current copyright middlemen comes within reach. I don't see that happening when content creators are treated as acceptable collateral damage in the war to found an "information wants to be free" utopia, though. It will have to be a different faction that successfully negotiates the alliance.