They won't be taking their balls and going home out of pique, they'll be doing it because they have to go to work.

Every hour an artist has to spend at a day job is an hour they can't spend creating. It's an hour they can't spend practicing. It's an hour they can't spend raising awareness of their work.

This is true but as a sort of counterpoint I think that sometimes once an artist gets well established they lose some of their connection to the normal world.

For example a lot of rock music comes from anger and frustration of having to work a shitty job, behave in a prescribed way and having little money.

As soon as you have released a few albums and have free reign to fill your nose with coke , cover yourself in tattoos and can afford to live wherever you like you may lose some of initial meaning behind the art and start to become pretentious and contrived.

Your premise doesn't seem terribly strong for a few reasons.

1) Artists have memories. When I was much younger, I worked as a telemarketer. It was probably the worst job I ever held in my life. It was soul-crushing. Even though I am now a reasonably successful software engineer, I still remember how difficult it was to go to work knowing that unless I was lucky, I was going to be rejected all day long. Even though I've been with my partner for more than a decade, I remember how chaotic, foolish, and frustrating the dating scene was. Anyone with a few years under their belt knows that a bad memory can jump out at you and make you feel exactly the way you did when it happened.

2) An artists music evolves over time. Look at the Beatles. "With the Beatles" is an astonishingly different album from "Abbey Road." Just because you start out as one thing doesn't mean you have to be that thing for the rest of your career.

3) Look at artists like Johnny Cash, Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp, and even Billy Joel to some extent. No matter what your opinion of their music is, it's hard to argue that they are not iconic representations of the "everyman" in music. Most of their output was produced while they were some of the highest paid performers in the world. Even a guy like Jay-Z hasn't been poor or street for a very long time, but if he puts out another record, you can be damned sure that there will be millions of people who buy it because he knows how to write songs that relate to the kind of person he used to be.

Don't put too much stock in the idea that you have to be street level to write good music.

I think you have a point but it's totally irrelevant. You're basically sayng that good artists should stay poor and work a day job so they can keep in touch with their roots and make good music. Well, maybe they should, maybe not but there's no connection to copyright here at all.

> "Why is it that the folks defending copyright always pull out the "But then creators will take their balls and go home!" card? That's such a repugnant, faithless argument. Numerous examples exist of people creating in spite of the system--and even making a living doing the same!"

Your logic is faulty - just because some people will continue to create in spite of the system does not mean all can continue to. Yes, indie game developers can continue to make games, but what about larger undertakings? You can't spend millions of dollars and employ large teams to devote themselves fully to creating a game like, say, Diablo 3, without some way to support those deveopers, artists, etc. A world with only indie games is less rich than a world with both indie and commercial games.

> "Tell that to the guys from Wolfire, or Notch. I'm sure they'll want to know--they've been doing it for years, and would be upset to find out that they can't make a living that way."

I'm not following this argument. Both Wolfire and Mojang (Notch's company) sell games. They also provide free demos but their primary income comes from selling copyrighted works, not donations.

If the market evolves to not sustain AAA games, thems the breaks.

I'm not following this argument. Both Wolfire and Mojang (Notch's company) sell games. They also provide free demos but their primary income comes from selling copyrighted works, not donations.

So, to a point, they are effectively living off "donations" until they ship 1.0, right? Preorders are effectively donations to continue development.

afaik, pre-orders give you access to the "beta" version which is still very playable and will also give you access to the finished version when it is done.

All you get for free is an older version where you cannot do multiplayer or save your game. Basically a demo.

Not all creators take their balls and go home. But enough will for it to be notable. Yes, there are those who will either deal with piracy and those who will give away their work freely. Those people will never go away but in a world without copyright we may not have had a Steve Jobs or a Bill Gates to play such a crucial role in the development of products we all use and love. I'm sure someone else may have created them but who's to say their version would be as good? I love FOSS software but I have to say I'm not going to pretend that all Open Source alternatives to copyrighted software are just as good. There's a lot to be said for the polish that comes from being funded. It's about business and it's no secret. The big evil companies make these polished products that are more enjoyable to use because they make money And are able to make money because they enforce the copyright on their work as much as they can. I also like local indie bands. I know a lot of them have a lot of their music too. It's true that they make most of their money touring and they give away a lot of their music for exposure free. But guess what? As great as their music is their records lack the polish that a major label album has and it quite frankly hurts them.

Your solution for indie developers sounds extremely far fetched and idealistic. "I'm developing software that does X, Y, and Z. If you like how that sounds then pay me before it's finished and then if I ever do finish it you'd better hope it lives up to what I said it would do. It's okay if it turns out to be garbage because you get to do whatever you want with it once I give it to you"? That doesn't scale. You're paying for what the software does for you, not for the actual software itself. It's a form of paying for a service. Some of the cost is for development but the core of what you pay is for the value you derive from it. Ideally there's a free trial and you see if you like it. Then you decide whether the cost lines up with what you're willing to pay based on the value you derive from it. In the end you're free to go elsewhere if it doesn't line up. It's a great system for all parties. I don't play any games but I do enjoy music and movies. The idea that entertainment as an industry being silly isn't relevant. We're talking about opinions here so I don't want to totally discount yours but I think it makes perfect sense for entertainment to be an industry. That's the nature of capitalism. Anything can become an industry if you set it up right. You can say the same of any industry but if that became the norm than business as we know it would cease to exist and everything would be a hobby. That sounds like entitlement. Like saying "I should be able to see movies, plays, concerts, etc. free because that's just a hobby and they should go get real jobs".

Living off donations can work I'll admit but it doesn't scale. Creators should be able to set the price for their work just as consumers should not be forced to pay for anything. But if you're not paying the creator what he asks then you aren't entitled to set his price or take it free. The market does that.

I know there will never be a right time for this just like anything but realistically we're not even close to being set up for such a switch. While I disagree with you right now and I think your position is a little extreme I have to say that the work of people like you will get us to a point where that switch may become a real possibility. I'd argue instead for everyone to agree on some middle ground but whichever way things go I will abide.

There is a sanity to copyright. There are competing interests between creators and consumers. That's part of what makes the market. Frankly, I'm surprised that people are defending only one side of this since we are all both creators and consumers. We can't give consumers all the rights and leave creators with no control of their works but we also can't give creators so much control that they seriously impede on the rights of consumers.

A lot of the rhetoric surrounding this seems to be focused on copyright but what I see is an anti-business position. We can't let ourselves go to extremes in the name of freedom or in the name of business as either would be an unjust crusade. Instead of chopping off our heads to cure a headache lets try to deal with specific issues. Abolishing copyright hurts us as much as letting copyright extend beyond its current state. The biggest issue I see is the distribution issue. We need to come to some agreement on what is legal when it comes to "sharing" among other things.

I'm not in favor of SOPA or it's relatives. I think copyright has become a monster. But I still support the idea, not the implementation. For a community that benefits from copyright so much I don't understand why so many are taking such an extreme position. I'd rather see us be more moderate. It's more same to call for shorter copyright terms and such than to get rid of it. When people argue about middle men screwing over artists and consumers we should be finding a way to either get rid of middle men or curb their power without totally obliterating copyright. Copyright can serve to keep works free just as much as it can restrict freedoms and most people forget that. Artists should get together and unionize for a higher cut of profits.

I wonder what would happen if record labels were fair to their artists. Would all the people bragging that they're pirates because it's morally wrong for labels to pay such a pittance still use that argument or has it just been a petty excuse all along? I get the feeling that a lot (but not all) of these "freedom fighting pirates" are doing things for their own self interest and not for any moral reasons at all.

So I disagree still. I'm not one to stubbornly hold an opinion to be right. So I'm interested to learn more but i think this position isn't just one position but part of a package deal that comes with an entire worldview that I don't understand.

(upvoted for effort, thank you sir/madam)

"There are competing interests between creators and consumers."

This part I don't quite get--what do consider the rights in conflict? Obviously there is the difference in what creators want to be paid and what consumers want to save, but is there something beyond this you intend...?

"When people argue about middle men screwing over artists and consumers we should be finding a way to either get rid of middle men or curb their power without totally obliterating copyright."

The problem I see is that copyright is primarily used these days to benefit the middlemen, right? Indeed, copyright (by its very nature) is aimed solely at benefiting whoever is in charge of distribution--it's about the right to copy.

As such, as technology attacks and removes middlemen, so too does it render obsolete the notion of copyright. If you empower consumers to handle their own distribution, the motivations for having copyright at all wither away and the legal machinery becomes vestigial.

"A lot of the rhetoric surrounding this seems to be focused on copyright but what I see is an anti-business position."

I am not qualified to speak on behalf of anyone claiming similar views. For my own part, though, it isn't about being anti-business--as Chesterson said: the problem isn't that there are too many capitalists; it's that there are too few.

I believe that copyright creates a barrier to entry in information economies that is vastly outweighed by the progress that comes from being able to openly improve and distribute works. Moreover, I believe that it allows business models that would not be practical in a free market.

I don't think we need to do away with business--I just believe that if you create IP you need to accept (as a given!) that you won't be able to control its dissemination, and model your business accordingly.

If you can provide support for it in the wild, better then the other guy, it's a viable business (see Red Hat, Ardor Labs, etc.)

If you can provide faster access and better UX for it, it's a viable business (see Steam, Netflix, etc.)

If you can't do any of that, but can offer a sense of engagement with the community while polishing the software and get paid by donations/preorders, it's a viable business (see Minecraft, Overgrowth, etc.)

Otherwise, you are literally building an entire business on scarcity the government provides and enforces. This doesn't strike me as sound.

While I disagree with you right now and I think your position is a little extreme I have to say that the work of people like you will get us to a point where that switch may become a real possibility.

I apologize that I'm so hardline on this, but I feel it the only rational position to take--tenable, perhaps not, but certainly the most rational.

"So I'm interested to learn more but i think this position isn't just one position but part of a package deal that comes with an entire worldview that I don't understand."

Thank you for keeping an open mind. :)

I've been wrestling with this for a few years now in one way or another.

My biggest suggestion is to start thinking about what is truly being sold, what value that truly has, and whether or not this system makes sense. Try to identify what makes that work, and who supports it, and how much excess exists along the way from the creator to the consumer.

The only reason I don't dig deeper here is because it's late and I'm sure everyone has moved on now but I just have to say I don't like Red Hat being used as a model for how to be profitable while giving away a product. It doesn't scale. Most software doesn't lend itself well to that. You're not paying for software, you're paying for the output.