3 ms·
> If I could copy someone's birdhouse, and they could still keep it, why should they even bother putting time into making the birdhouse in the first place if th
by aes256 14y ago
> If I could copy someone's birdhouse, and they could still keep it, why should they even bother putting time into making the birdhouse in the first place if the whole point was to make money off of it? In that case, there's no incentive to create anything at all.
You've just glimpsed the future. The creation of content without monetization as the primary, or indeed any, motivation.
There are other motivations to create original content, and monetization can be achieved indirectly (e.g. musicians sharing their music for free to sell concert tickets or merchandise, authors writing books to sell public speaking engagements) so that those involved in the creation of original content can still earn a living doing so.
- Xcelerate 14y agoRight, I can see things headed that way. I mean, people already create a lot of things just because they want to, and they want to see them shared. The problem is that when the creation of something is expressly for the purpose of maintaining someone's livelihood, they should be the only person who decides how that content is handled. It isn't (or shouldn't) be up to everyone else to decide how their work is distributed just because everyone else thinks the world would be a better place if they just copied it all over the place.
- aes256 14y agoThe fact that their livelihood depends on other people consuming the content they create in specific ways (i.e. remunerating them in the process) does not give them the right to limit the ways in which other people can consume said content.