It would be better if you spend some time to understand what they MEANT with by "content" in their statement, instead of attacking their statement "as given", i.e with only considering the more basic meaning of the word content.
Also: it's not just that "undistributed content might as well not exist", it's also that content not done to a level the public wants "might as well not exist". Even if you distribute (say, online, on YouTube) your "movie" made with a camcorder, it doesn't mean it will replace an actual, budgeted movie, for the majority of people.
>Also, you claim (as does everyone else in this debate, it would seem) that creators must be compensated or less content will result. You cannot prove this, or if you can, you have not shown a reasoning chain that results in it. Use logic.
Why don't YOU use logic? I don't have to "prove" anything, it's obvious.
1) People produce content for two reasons: for free and because they are paid to do so.
If they are not paid, the second reason ceases to exist. (If you don't believe that some of the professional content creators would not produce stuff if there were no money involved, talk to some of them). A lot of content is not produced "out of passion" at all, but solely for money. Justin Bieber songs, hollywood blockbuster, etc.
2) Content creation costs money. If content is not paid, expensive content will not be produced by anyone, even those that do it out of passion. A money, which can get to $100 million budget easily, is expensive content.
3) Content creation takes time. If professional creators cannot do it as a full time job, they will work some other full time job, and if they still feel the urge to do it out of passion, they would do it on their spare time. Again, volume will drop.
Re: your 3 assertions towards the end.
1) Agreed. However, the absolute amount of content being produced is increasing regardless as population grows and tool proliferate. We all know you can't count a decrease in growth the same way you count an actual cost.
2) Content creation becoming expensive can be a function just as much about expectations of what something should cost as it is actual production cost--so, no, I don't agree that creation costs what it actually needs to. Expensive things won't be made, sure, but what about ten cheap things instead? Or a hundred hobby things?
3) Agreed that time is used. However, how many people program in their free time if they do it as a job? How many people shoot movies in their free time as Best Boy Grip or whatever? Just because they do it as a day job doesn't mean that they'll do it as a hobby, too. Or that they wouldn't increase their hobby time now that they don't have to do it for a living.
The person I was replying to was trying to contend that content is scarce. I showed that, no, it indeed is not. Had they put in your caveat that undistributed content might as well not exist, I would've cheerfully argued and perhaps ceded the point. But, their statement, as given? Wrong.
Also, you claim (as does everyone else in this debate, it would seem) that creators must be compensated or less content will result. You cannot prove this, or if you can, you have not shown a reasoning chain that results in it. Use logic.
EDIT: Downvote away, but for chrissakes at least provide your reasoning. What is this, reddit?