4 ms·

DRM is not my preferred solution but it's really the only solution that our profession has offered the content creators^ as a means of protecting their property

DRM is not my preferred solution but it's really the only solution that our profession has offered the content creators^ as a means of protecting their property. Perhaps it's time for us to invent a solution that satisfies the principles of openness and the ability for creators to get paid (and this was always what I took from TBL's comments) ^ and I don't just mean the Disneys of the world. Independent photographers in particular are royally screwed by the web - though even DRM won't fix that.

chimeracoder 13y ago
> Independent photographers in particular are royally screwed by the web - though even DRM won't fix that. DRM is a haphazard attempt to violate fundamental laws of economics - if a good can be copied and distributed at zero marginal cost[0], it's futile trying to prevent that by fiat. Independent artists and musicians have always been "screwed" if they want to make a living selling their art itself, as opposed to performances of it (for musicians) or the service of creating it (ie, photoshoots, wedding photographs). We can look at the business models that Shakespeare and Marlowe operated under, or even Bach and Beethoven - by and large, artists in this era were paid by patrons who essentially commissioned works. And this was still in an era in which copying the plays or sheet music still came at a significant marginal cost (whereas copying digital works has no cost). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)
- Loughla 13y ago
  So, um, you're suggesting a business model for art and creativity that relies on the largesse of wealthy patrons? I really, really hope you like love songs and terrible portraits.
  - logfromblammo 13y ago
    Back when patronage was the dominant business model for art creation, "wealthy" was pretty much anyone that had space in their budget for discretionary expenses. These days, you don't need one person to pay your living expenses while you create. You can get 50000 fans to pay you $1 a year to make the stuff that they think is cool. With cryptocurrency, you can even get fans from other countries to pay patronage. Sure, rich people will always be able to commission the crap that no one likes but them, but that's no longer the only way to go.
  - polymatter 13y ago
    Kickstarter-like funding? Public money? Donations? Grants? I don't believe that the law should be trying to protect the current business model of horse breeders/candlestick makers/cinema complexes simply because technology has made possible a cheaper and better equivalent.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - bovermyer 13y ago
    Besides Kickstarter, there is a company that is very successfully doing this in the tabletop role-playing game industry. The patron model is viable, as long as you diversify your patrons. It's not really all that different from the freelance coder lifestyle.

chimeracoder 13y ago

> Independent photographers in particular are royally screwed by the web - though even DRM won't fix that. DRM is a haphazard attempt to violate fundamental laws of economics - if a good can be copied and distributed at zero marginal cost[0], it's futile trying to prevent that by fiat. Independent artists and musicians have always been "screwed" if they want to make a living selling their art itself, as opposed to performances of it (for musicians) or the service of creating it (ie, photoshoots, wedding photographs). We can look at the business models that Shakespeare and Marlowe operated under, or even Bach and Beethoven - by and large, artists in this era were paid by patrons who essentially commissioned works. And this was still in an era in which copying the plays or sheet music still came at a significant marginal cost (whereas copying digital works has no cost). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)

Loughla 13y ago
So, um, you're suggesting a business model for art and creativity that relies on the largesse of wealthy patrons? I really, really hope you like love songs and terrible portraits.
- logfromblammo 13y ago
  Back when patronage was the dominant business model for art creation, "wealthy" was pretty much anyone that had space in their budget for discretionary expenses. These days, you don't need one person to pay your living expenses while you create. You can get 50000 fans to pay you $1 a year to make the stuff that they think is cool. With cryptocurrency, you can even get fans from other countries to pay patronage. Sure, rich people will always be able to commission the crap that no one likes but them, but that's no longer the only way to go.
- polymatter 13y ago
  Kickstarter-like funding? Public money? Donations? Grants? I don't believe that the law should be trying to protect the current business model of horse breeders/candlestick makers/cinema complexes simply because technology has made possible a cheaper and better equivalent.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- bovermyer 13y ago
  Besides Kickstarter, there is a company that is very successfully doing this in the tabletop role-playing game industry. The patron model is viable, as long as you diversify your patrons. It's not really all that different from the freelance coder lifestyle.