3 ms·

> This modern trend of needing to pay before you even know if you love the work How modern do you mean? It seems to me that I pay for a movie ticket before I s

> This modern trend of needing to pay before you even know if you love the work How modern do you mean? It seems to me that I pay for a movie ticket before I sit down in the theatre and watch it (trailer not withstanding). Same is true for plays and operas which preceded that. I would pay for a book before reading it (cover excerpt not withstanding). In fact, I'm trying to think of any media that I would consume before I paid. > Got any data to back up this feeling? Meh, we're only going to throw anecdotes back and forth. I recall bands like Radiohead and comedians like Luis C.K. experimenting with "pay what you want" ideas. I would suppose the fact that didn't catch on (outside of humble bundle charity type things) would be evidence that it didn't work for a large enough segment of creators. Also, it isn't like RIAA members are allergic to money. I mean, if there was any reasonable evidence that free sharing of content resulted in profits that are equal or greater (or even viable) rationality suggests that they would embrace it.

Thorentis 6y ago
I have no issue paying for movie tickets or concert tickets, and believe that is the primary way movie and music creators should be supported. A theatre ticket covers the costs of running a theatre, a concert ticket covers the cost of running the concert. And the artists/creators receive a cut of that. But if I copy a film, what's actually happening? The distributor has already spent the money on making blurays and distributing to streaming platforms. If I photocopy a book, the publisher has already spent the time and material to produce the physical copy. The only argument here is that the author deserves a cut of revenue, because another copy of their (already publicly available idea) is in existence. I find this notion absurd. Why is an author entitled to money when an idea they have already disseminated is put onto a new piece of paper? I own the paper and the photocopier. The materials are mine. The author should not have a monopoly on how ideas are spread. Nobody can compel them to share their ideas, but once they are shared, they are out there. I could read a book to somebody and a partial copy exists in their mind. Should authors receive royalties for mental copies too? Why not? They lost nothing physical when I made a paper copy either. Our copyright system is broken, and is based on completely flawed premises.
- bigphishy 6y ago
  It's a difficult problem to solve, but it's worth pointing out that our copyright system was originally meant to protect initial works, then when they expire, create a rich public domain for citizens.
sjy 6y ago
> Meh, we're only going to throw anecdotes back and forth. That’s a big problem with this whole debate. I think we’d be better off without copyright and that creators would find new, better ways to make a living. But it’s pretty difficult to see how this could be convincingly proved or disproved, so I guess we’re stuck with the status quo forever.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  A law which can't be proven to be effective is a bad law. If it's difficult to prove whether or not copyright is effective then the laws which restrict freedom need to be removed.

Thorentis 6y ago

I have no issue paying for movie tickets or concert tickets, and believe that is the primary way movie and music creators should be supported. A theatre ticket covers the costs of running a theatre, a concert ticket covers the cost of running the concert. And the artists/creators receive a cut of that. But if I copy a film, what's actually happening? The distributor has already spent the money on making blurays and distributing to streaming platforms. If I photocopy a book, the publisher has already spent the time and material to produce the physical copy. The only argument here is that the author deserves a cut of revenue, because another copy of their (already publicly available idea) is in existence. I find this notion absurd. Why is an author entitled to money when an idea they have already disseminated is put onto a new piece of paper? I own the paper and the photocopier. The materials are mine. The author should not have a monopoly on how ideas are spread. Nobody can compel them to share their ideas, but once they are shared, they are out there. I could read a book to somebody and a partial copy exists in their mind. Should authors receive royalties for mental copies too? Why not? They lost nothing physical when I made a paper copy either. Our copyright system is broken, and is based on completely flawed premises.

bigphishy 6y ago
It's a difficult problem to solve, but it's worth pointing out that our copyright system was originally meant to protect initial works, then when they expire, create a rich public domain for citizens.

sjy 6y ago

> Meh, we're only going to throw anecdotes back and forth. That’s a big problem with this whole debate. I think we’d be better off without copyright and that creators would find new, better ways to make a living. But it’s pretty difficult to see how this could be convincingly proved or disproved, so I guess we’re stuck with the status quo forever.

Thorentis 6y ago
A law which can't be proven to be effective is a bad law. If it's difficult to prove whether or not copyright is effective then the laws which restrict freedom need to be removed.