3 ms·

New technology always causes us to lose something. The issue is whether or not we gain more than we lose, and the answer is universally "yes." The combination

New technology always causes us to lose something. The issue is whether or not we gain more than we lose, and the answer is universally "yes." The combination of PCs and the Internet has made copyrights obsolete, and with that the concept of royalties is obsolete. Yet what we have gained from those technology vastly outweighs what we have lost. Poor students who can barely afford tuition can access textbooks they would otherwise be unable to afford. The concept of "rare" or "out of print" is a thing of the past. One no longer needs to travel long distances to find a library with a copy of some book or photograph. People who have no idea how to develop a photograph can send copies to their entire family at near-zero cost. Researchers have presented systems that can create accurate 3D maps of cities using photographs published on the Internet. I would not throw any of the above away just to preserve the ability of a tiny minority of authors, musicians, actors, etc. to live on their royalty payments. I want to be able to read scientific papers without having to spend hours searching bound journals at some library. Creative workers can and will find ways to monetize their abilities in a post-copyright world, and they will have to do so without relying on DRM and without trying to destroy the Internet.

leephillips 14y ago
I absolutely agree with you about the importance and wonders of the internet. And you are undoubtedly right that the internet is making copyright, or at least the traditional view of copyright, obsolete. But we have some ability to create the future by influencing the direction of technology, law, and cultural attitudes. And to fail to replace copyright with something else that allows people to make a living through intellectual and creative work will be a grave mistake. Just ditching copyright and embracing unfettered copying while hoping that creative people will somehow figure out how to feed their families will mean that less, much less, gets created, and we will all be poorer for it. So far, no idea has been shown to be viable: voluntary payments do not and will not work, because enough people will not pay; taking your show on the road only works for able-bodied people with certain combinations of talents, and even then only while they are young and without children - when they need a steady income the least. We need new ideas, and new legal frameworks. Just saying that everything should be free leaves us endlessly recycling the creations of the past, created in the days when authors were still getting paid.
- vy8vWJlco 14y ago
  "less, much less, gets created, and we will all be poorer for it" I have seen no evidence of this. In fact, the Internet boom has been one of the most empowering and prosperous times for creators (distinguished from mere distributors) in my memory. (In fact, I don't recall nearly as much quality music 10 years ago.) Furthermore, the alternative model you seek is simply that of time-tested patronage, which has been the default for anything worth doing since the beginning of history. Today we have the possibility of crowd-funding. I have not been given any reasons to expect less art, only more. Netflix, for example (arguably still a mere distributor), is even producing original series for it's own subscription audience. Copyright is part of the present economy, but Netflix would still want new content for it's channel were it not. Subscriptions are just another form of patronage.

leephillips 14y ago

I absolutely agree with you about the importance and wonders of the internet. And you are undoubtedly right that the internet is making copyright, or at least the traditional view of copyright, obsolete. But we have some ability to create the future by influencing the direction of technology, law, and cultural attitudes. And to fail to replace copyright with something else that allows people to make a living through intellectual and creative work will be a grave mistake. Just ditching copyright and embracing unfettered copying while hoping that creative people will somehow figure out how to feed their families will mean that less, much less, gets created, and we will all be poorer for it. So far, no idea has been shown to be viable: voluntary payments do not and will not work, because enough people will not pay; taking your show on the road only works for able-bodied people with certain combinations of talents, and even then only while they are young and without children - when they need a steady income the least. We need new ideas, and new legal frameworks. Just saying that everything should be free leaves us endlessly recycling the creations of the past, created in the days when authors were still getting paid.

vy8vWJlco 14y ago
"less, much less, gets created, and we will all be poorer for it" I have seen no evidence of this. In fact, the Internet boom has been one of the most empowering and prosperous times for creators (distinguished from mere distributors) in my memory. (In fact, I don't recall nearly as much quality music 10 years ago.) Furthermore, the alternative model you seek is simply that of time-tested patronage, which has been the default for anything worth doing since the beginning of history. Today we have the possibility of crowd-funding. I have not been given any reasons to expect less art, only more. Netflix, for example (arguably still a mere distributor), is even producing original series for it's own subscription audience. Copyright is part of the present economy, but Netflix would still want new content for it's channel were it not. Subscriptions are just another form of patronage.