3 ms·

Regardless of whether human creativity is intrinsically bound to economic reward (I would strongly argue that it isn't), the fact of the matter is that you can'

Regardless of whether human creativity is intrinsically bound to economic reward (I would strongly argue that it isn't), the fact of the matter is that you can't make the case that what we're dealing with isn't a matter of artificial scarcity.

jonhohle 16y ago
The true scarcity is the clever/creative author, which was previously monetized by selling less scarce physical artifacts of the author's work. This doesn't decrease the value of the author, however they are stuck finding another way to capitalize on their ability. Software did it by putting software behind services, not allowing copies to be distributed to the end users. Perhaps authors can figure out something analogous.
robryan 16y ago
If an author can't afford to put all their time towards writing a book though, because they no longer make any significant amount of money out them, wouldn't it be a net loss for society. I agree that creativity isn't bound, but it will certainly happen less when a person who is exceptional doesn't have the opportunity to full devote themselves to their craft.
bad_user 16y ago
Almost everything sold today is by means of artificial scarcity ... do you think oil companies are happy with alternative fuels and hybrid diesels? Related to book authors: they need a way to make a living writing books, at least part-time. Also in a fair society, brilliant people should be rewarded accordingly.
ergo98 16y ago
>Regardless of whether human creativity is intrinsically bound to economic reward "Reward" is the means to pursue your creativity. The ability for an author or a photographer or a painter or a musician to actually work on their trade instead of working menial jobs to try to support a hobby. There was once a time in human history where creativity wasn't a meritocracy. It was an idle pursuit that the rich engaged in. Is that a better model? >the fact of the matter is that you can't make the case that what we're dealing with isn't a matter of artificial scarcity From a naive perspective, of course you can copy that floppy. From a rational perspective, however, of course it deals with a real scarcity of creation that copyright seeks to prevent (just as patents attempt to prevent a scarcity of innovation, though the results are much more mixed).
krschultz 16y ago
And what is the marginal cost of printing a book? The difference between burning a CD or printing a book and sending a digital file is often overblown. If it costs $1 to burn a CD that sells for $10 or $2 to print a book that sells for $25, 90%+ of the money is still paying for other things. Publishers are not as dumb as the pirates think. The publishers just actually have seen the numbers and know that if you take out the cost of printing, you really haven't lowered the cost of the book very much. If you take out the cost of burning the CD, you really haven't lowered the cost to the record label very much. So why should they be expected to now evaporate 100% of their revenue becuase their cost drop 10 or 20 or 30 percent? That is nuts.

jonhohle 16y ago

The true scarcity is the clever/creative author, which was previously monetized by selling less scarce physical artifacts of the author's work. This doesn't decrease the value of the author, however they are stuck finding another way to capitalize on their ability. Software did it by putting software behind services, not allowing copies to be distributed to the end users. Perhaps authors can figure out something analogous.

robryan 16y ago

If an author can't afford to put all their time towards writing a book though, because they no longer make any significant amount of money out them, wouldn't it be a net loss for society. I agree that creativity isn't bound, but it will certainly happen less when a person who is exceptional doesn't have the opportunity to full devote themselves to their craft.

bad_user 16y ago

Almost everything sold today is by means of artificial scarcity ... do you think oil companies are happy with alternative fuels and hybrid diesels? Related to book authors: they need a way to make a living writing books, at least part-time. Also in a fair society, brilliant people should be rewarded accordingly.

ergo98 16y ago

>Regardless of whether human creativity is intrinsically bound to economic reward "Reward" is the means to pursue your creativity. The ability for an author or a photographer or a painter or a musician to actually work on their trade instead of working menial jobs to try to support a hobby. There was once a time in human history where creativity wasn't a meritocracy. It was an idle pursuit that the rich engaged in. Is that a better model? >the fact of the matter is that you can't make the case that what we're dealing with isn't a matter of artificial scarcity From a naive perspective, of course you can copy that floppy. From a rational perspective, however, of course it deals with a real scarcity of creation that copyright seeks to prevent (just as patents attempt to prevent a scarcity of innovation, though the results are much more mixed).

krschultz 16y ago

And what is the marginal cost of printing a book? The difference between burning a CD or printing a book and sending a digital file is often overblown. If it costs $1 to burn a CD that sells for $10 or $2 to print a book that sells for $25, 90%+ of the money is still paying for other things. Publishers are not as dumb as the pirates think. The publishers just actually have seen the numbers and know that if you take out the cost of printing, you really haven't lowered the cost of the book very much. If you take out the cost of burning the CD, you really haven't lowered the cost to the record label very much. So why should they be expected to now evaporate 100% of their revenue becuase their cost drop 10 or 20 or 30 percent? That is nuts.