Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnRTroy" data-source="post: 4700438" data-attributes="member: 2732">This is a huge crux of the argument.  People argue about artists shouldn't get paid, but they wouldn't suggest it for other elements of society.  There may be some benefits to certain elements of society being socialized but there are drawbacks.  If the business model changes for artistic works, there will be drawbacks and repercussions.  Regarding the whole concept of royalties, I've explained it before by posting Grant's essay.  Before you condemn the whole concept of "royalties", paying for ideas, etc, think about these few concepts.Success in arts and entertainment is different than other jobs.  You can't expect to pay a novelist or a singer a flat rate for the work, because it's a crapshoot.  The more people who read/listen to it, the more they should get paid.  It's a merit system.  If you paid a person a flat one time fee, either the company funding it couldn't afford to pay a decent rate (because there are too many failures and not enough successes.), or the creator would feel ripped off as the publishing companies would make all the money and not give some back.You have to also understand how entertainment media works.  For every 1 success there are 100 failures.  I think people focus on the really big guys, the corporations, the millionare artists, and don't realize that there are a lot of little guys.  As far as the "art for art's sake" argument, that's a great way to get ripped off.  Smart artists, like smart contract workers, try to get guaranteed payments.  J. Michael Strazynski had worked on a book called Rising Stars for Top Cow, then got into a dispute and the book was in limbo for over a year.  When a fan said "shouldn't finishing the story be the top priority", and I believe JMS said something akin to "that's a great way to get ripped off".  Mark Evanier has a great <a href="http://www.povonline.com/cols/COL209.htm" target="_blank">three-part column about these occurrences</a>: In short, people exploit that idea.Regarding the argument "you can't stop piracy, you shouldn't even try", that's woefully inaccurate.  It's like saying why bother with protecting money, you can't stop counterfeiting".  If the governments of the world had that attitude you couldn't have a money system.The Internet may seem like a wild west, but then again, you used to be able to drive a car without a license.  Traffic Laws came for safety's sake.  It's really strange that people who love technology think that they'll always have 100% privacy on the Internet, that you can't stop piracy.  However, the same technologies can also be used to detect things like viruses, spyware, and businesses can track your Internet activities at work, and YouTube has filters now to prevent unauthorized copyright works to be uploaded.  I suspect things people come to expect will change, such as sales tax being applied to all e-commerce retailers in the US, for instead.  If they don't add more security to prevent piracy, they might to prevent cracking and so-called "real" theft--the theft of money, which is becoming a big problem.  Do I think in some cases, technological innovations cause disruptions, yes.  I don't think that can be stopped.  I also think in some cases companies made short-sighted decisions that hurt them and will cause changes--newspapers shouldn't have given away their news for free, smart guys like the Wall Street Journal were able to charge and stay profitable.  But I think people need to educate themselves.  Don't just listen to the technology proponents--a lot of them have their own agendas.  (A company like Google benefits financially by turning content into a commodity, and I see some of it as akin to trying to roll back many elements of workers rights.)  Study basic economics, study history and historical models.  Don't just listen to pundits that have the point of view you like, read what the other side has to say.  You'll gain insights.  I always read all the political opinion columns in the newspaper, not just the ones that agree with my politics.  So, listen to the contrarians and read their point of views.  Instead of just reading Lessig and Anderson, read <a href="http://andrewkeen.typepad.com/" target="_blank">Andrew Keen</a> and <a href="http://music-tech-policy.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Christian L. Castle</a>.  They make a lot of good points.Another problem is something I think is a cultural problem.  People are way damn too spoiled nowadays.  I read this forum and see people arguing about "getting the PHB first", etc--it's like a wait of a few days or a week is intolerable.  People need to learn patience, and not have "instant gratification".  The excuse that you should be able to download a copy of software or a book because you already paid for it and have to wait 2 days for shipping is just that, or that you have the entitlement to preview the entire thing first before paying.  "Doing without" can help build character.  Unless we are very rich, we all have to make some sacrifices.  I see the people who download software/media without paying as the same as those illegally tapping cable or satellite.  It's not a valid view in my mind.  Pay for the product, or go without the product.</blockquote>

Verification