5 ms·

>I would say it's more like some people walked out of the library with them. No. If anything, they are walking out of the library with a perfect copy of the bo

>I would say it's more like some people walked out of the library with them. No. If anything, they are walking out of the library with a perfect copy of the book, while the library still has the original. Nobody looses anything. People need to stop clinging to paid distribution of content as a business model. It's obsolete.

edanm 15y ago
If by "obsolete", you mean "a business that rolls in many billions of dollars every year", then you're right.
- slowpoke 15y ago
  You're committing a fallacy here, in addition to completely missing my point. The fact that it still rolls in billions has nothing to do with any justification of the business model. To use an extreme analogy: slave trade rolled in a huge profit as well. Would that be a justification for slave trade for you?
  - edanm 15y ago
    Well now you're talking about morality. I honestly had no idea that that's what you were referring to in your post.
danssig 15y ago
But your model isn't right either. An author has to have a way to be compensation and depending on charity (of thieves no less) just isn't valid. The book has value or it doesn't. If it has no value then it shouldn't be created.
- eropple 15y ago
  The unpleasant implication of slowpoke's "model" (and it's really just recycled Stallman nonsense) is that they'd really do it for the love of the art, and to hell with such ephemeral things as "eating". Guess they have to get a job or something.
  - slowpoke 15y ago
    Where did I ever mention any model of my own? Arguing against something does not imply my stance on anything else. You're committing a fallacy here. Also, there are very few artists which can actually live of their art alone, WITH copyright. That wouldn't change much without it. It's how things always have been, despite what the content industry would like you to believe. Your petty appeal to emotion won't change it, either. Finally, ignoring the fact that rms is a strawman in this context, if you'd ever read what he writes about selling software, you'd know that it does not really matter to him as long as the essential freedoms are preserved (beer vs freedom).
jonnathanson 15y ago
"People need to stop clinging to paid distribution of content as a business model." If there's no money to be made in producing content, then nobody will produce content (aside from financially independent amateurs, in the model of the 18th century novelists). There needs to be some way to monetize the labor and time that goes into the production of art and entertainment. IMO, anyone who claims that paid distribution needs to go away also bears the burden of proposing an alternative that makes rational business sense. Ads? Donations? Netflix-esque subscription models? Pick one or pick something else entirely, but the answer isn't "business as usual, except nobody earns a return on investment."
- danssig 15y ago
  Ads is the one people keep reaching for, but if we continue with this route what will we be advertising exactly?
- slowpoke 15y ago
  >If there's no money to be made in producing content, then nobody will produce content Sigh, how often have I heard this by now? It's a lie, and you know it. The only thing that will stop existing are the big content industries. >There needs to be some way to monetize the labor and time that goes into the production of art and entertainment. And where did I exclude that? I merely said that paid distribution of content is no longer a viable business model. Gatekeepers are no longer needed in a modern information society. Besides, I don't care about the copyright industry's profits and it enrages me that you think I should[1]. >IMO, anyone who claims that paid distribution needs to go away also bears the burden of proposing an alternative that makes rational business sense. Why should I need to propose an alternative? I'm stating a factual truth: the business model is obsolete, and trying to preserve it by force ultimately hurts everyone's rights and liberties. If the alternative is no alternative, then so be it. An analogy: If somebody would invent teleportation, it would not be his or her job to come up with new business models for the industries that produce or provide other means of transportation. And no, this is not an utopian scenario. It has happened hundreds, if not thousand times in the past. A new technology came along, making an older one obsolete, and possibly putting entire industries out of business[2]. Nobody complained. Until now - when the content industry is the first that thinks it's entitled to laws and regulation to safe their business model from rightly going the way of the dinosaur. [1] Shamelessly ripped off from http://torrentfreak.com/i-dont-care-about-your-profits-and-it-enrages-me-that-you-think-i-should-110911/ http://torrentfreak.com/i-dont-care-about-your-profits-and-i... [2] Another very nice essay by Rick Falkvinge, also on TF: http://torrentfreak.com/nobody-asked-for-a-refrigerator-fee-110821/ http://torrentfreak.com/nobody-asked-for-a-refrigerator-fee-...

edanm 15y ago

If by "obsolete", you mean "a business that rolls in many billions of dollars every year", then you're right.

slowpoke 15y ago
You're committing a fallacy here, in addition to completely missing my point. The fact that it still rolls in billions has nothing to do with any justification of the business model. To use an extreme analogy: slave trade rolled in a huge profit as well. Would that be a justification for slave trade for you?
- edanm 15y ago
  Well now you're talking about morality. I honestly had no idea that that's what you were referring to in your post.

danssig 15y ago

But your model isn't right either. An author has to have a way to be compensation and depending on charity (of thieves no less) just isn't valid. The book has value or it doesn't. If it has no value then it shouldn't be created.

eropple 15y ago
The unpleasant implication of slowpoke's "model" (and it's really just recycled Stallman nonsense) is that they'd really do it for the love of the art, and to hell with such ephemeral things as "eating". Guess they have to get a job or something.
- slowpoke 15y ago
  Where did I ever mention any model of my own? Arguing against something does not imply my stance on anything else. You're committing a fallacy here. Also, there are very few artists which can actually live of their art alone, WITH copyright. That wouldn't change much without it. It's how things always have been, despite what the content industry would like you to believe. Your petty appeal to emotion won't change it, either. Finally, ignoring the fact that rms is a strawman in this context, if you'd ever read what he writes about selling software, you'd know that it does not really matter to him as long as the essential freedoms are preserved (beer vs freedom).

jonnathanson 15y ago

"People need to stop clinging to paid distribution of content as a business model." If there's no money to be made in producing content, then nobody will produce content (aside from financially independent amateurs, in the model of the 18th century novelists). There needs to be some way to monetize the labor and time that goes into the production of art and entertainment. IMO, anyone who claims that paid distribution needs to go away also bears the burden of proposing an alternative that makes rational business sense. Ads? Donations? Netflix-esque subscription models? Pick one or pick something else entirely, but the answer isn't "business as usual, except nobody earns a return on investment."

danssig 15y ago
Ads is the one people keep reaching for, but if we continue with this route what will we be advertising exactly?
slowpoke 15y ago
>If there's no money to be made in producing content, then nobody will produce content Sigh, how often have I heard this by now? It's a lie, and you know it. The only thing that will stop existing are the big content industries. >There needs to be some way to monetize the labor and time that goes into the production of art and entertainment. And where did I exclude that? I merely said that paid distribution of content is no longer a viable business model. Gatekeepers are no longer needed in a modern information society. Besides, I don't care about the copyright industry's profits and it enrages me that you think I should[1]. >IMO, anyone who claims that paid distribution needs to go away also bears the burden of proposing an alternative that makes rational business sense. Why should I need to propose an alternative? I'm stating a factual truth: the business model is obsolete, and trying to preserve it by force ultimately hurts everyone's rights and liberties. If the alternative is no alternative, then so be it. An analogy: If somebody would invent teleportation, it would not be his or her job to come up with new business models for the industries that produce or provide other means of transportation. And no, this is not an utopian scenario. It has happened hundreds, if not thousand times in the past. A new technology came along, making an older one obsolete, and possibly putting entire industries out of business[2]. Nobody complained. Until now - when the content industry is the first that thinks it's entitled to laws and regulation to safe their business model from rightly going the way of the dinosaur. [1] Shamelessly ripped off from http://torrentfreak.com/i-dont-care-about-your-profits-and-it-enrages-me-that-you-think-i-should-110911/ http://torrentfreak.com/i-dont-care-about-your-profits-and-i... [2] Another very nice essay by Rick Falkvinge, also on TF: http://torrentfreak.com/nobody-asked-for-a-refrigerator-fee-110821/ http://torrentfreak.com/nobody-asked-for-a-refrigerator-fee-...