3 ms·
> Doesn't it cost money to produce the smell? The author's point on this is that there's already a paying customer who covers the cost of producing the smell (
by ef4 15y ago
> Doesn't it cost money to produce the smell?
The author's point on this is that there's already a paying customer who covers the cost of producing the smell (by buying the meal).
Which just goes to show you can't push a metaphor too far. I still agree more with PG's conclusion. It really is a strawman to claim that copyright is the only way to pay creators.
- guard-of-terra 15y agoIn fact it is so. There's already a paying customer who receives meal: local distributors who the content is licensed to. They get exclusive rights to the content (meal). Now, internet services receive smells: non-exclusive rights which are valid in some countries and not others, like cheese with holes. Now there's this huge problem where I can't go to 99% of internet services and pay for music because they don't want my money because I live in a wrong country. This is what we'd call "smell", and while I would pay for "meal" (ability to use any music service in the world according to its pricing and model), I'm only offered "smell" (the suggestion to go elsewhere and figure a way to actually pay for stuff). And this smell, I won't buy.