Debunk The Myth That Copyright Is Needed To Make Money

Re:Debunk The Myth That Copyright Is Needed To Make Money by EvanAnderson on Monday October 08, 2012 @03:15AM (#4625844)

I can't accept the premise that society simply wants "higher creative values". Just because the technology exists to make movies, for example, that feature photorealistic CGI robots throwing buildings at each other doesn't mean that such technology (and its requisite expense) _has_ to be incorporated into every movie. High production values exist, but that doesn't mean every creative product must have them. Consumers still purchase licenses for works with lower production values if the work is compelling. It may be that the factors supporting the finance of works with large creation expense are just an aberration and will disappear. I'm not arguing morality or a position on copyright-- I'm simply saying that if it becomes impossible to profit with works that cost a lot to make then nobody will make those works anymore. Technology has changed the landscape, and unless you're willing to live in a police state with strict regulations on general purpose computing and communications technology, that genie isn't getting back in the bottle.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Debunk The Myth That Copyright Is Needed To Make Money by Silhouette on Monday October 08, 2012 @04:28AM (#4625990)

Of course there are worthwhile works that don't have expensive production costs. I've never suggested otherwise, nor would I.

But huge numbers of people apparently value the works we do produce today that have those expensive production values, and in the case of works created for utility rather than entertainment, the usefulness of the work may drop off rapidly if it's not as well made.

Technology has changed the landscape, and unless you're willing to live in a police state with strict regulations on general purpose computing and communications technology, that genie isn't getting back in the bottle.

Technology has changed many landscapes, but just because we can do something, that doesn't mean we should. Most people recognise that certain acts are harmful to specific people or to society as a whole, and we legislate to make those acts illegal. We can certainly debate whether copying a knowledge work under various conditions is such an act, and if so, whether copyright is an appropriate response, but I don't think "This is the way the world is, deal with it" is a compelling argument. Anarchy would be very unpleasant for many members of society.

[ Parent | on HN ]