I like your point, you are basically saying artist should sell things under CreativeCommons-like licenses (meaning you aren't restricting the rights of your consumers). Correct?
So treat Expressive works just like any other product, that can be bought, resold, copied, modifyed/hacked. Is that the logical conclusion of your position?
How do we (should we?) protect innovation? The patent system? the copyright system? Some other form of protection?
>It is possible to be paid in other ways -- that do not impose on other freedoms.
What ways? And if you say "selling t-shirts" then you lose.
Re:Why I'm a Pirate
by stevecooperorg on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @08:40PM
(#3482816)
> Does payment depend, necessarily, on restriction of copying? No, it does not.
The only other way I can think of is patronage; I produce a work for a patron according to their wishes, and hand it over for a fee, at which point I relinquish any further control.
Are there other models?
Isn't this largely what the recording industry and movie studio model is? They front the money to an artist to pay to produce a work and the artist relinquishes further control. In this case the patron is buying the work in order to resell it.
You can sell rights to be the first viewer/reader/consumer. With a world where all digital content is almost free, first-time exclusivity can increase highly its value.
Re:Why I'm a Pirate
by stevecooperorg on Thursday January 19, 2012 @05:17AM
(#3483869)
I agree that 'first consumer pays everything' is an option. Hardback books work like this a little -- if you want to read it earlier, you need to pay more.
I don't know that this continues to work for digital goods. Are there examples you're thinking of?
Yes, we could say that work justifies payment (very simply and roughly). But that is not in dispute. It is that it does not justify payment by a particular means -- one that restricts the freedom (to copy etc.) of others. And -- you will forgive me if I am mistaken -- I am afraid inclusion of the word 'fucking' does not quite cover that.
Does payment depend, necessarily, on restriction of copying? No, it does not. It is possible to be paid in other ways -- that do not impose on other freedoms. Then in the most general sense, that sounds like what we ought to be doing (i.e. that is moral).
Again, in so far as it turns out most practical to pay by copyright, that is how far it is justified. Not in some other ethical way.