>We can figure out another way to reward creators without creating artificial marketplaces that demand most go without so the few left have reason to spend.
I'd argue that we have already. Creating media is expensive, and if you take away the ability for people to monetize media you get rid of a segment who create media for the sake of media. The only people left are those wealthy enough to do so, and are no doubt looking to protect/expand their own profit centers.
The extreme view of this is that now Tarantino can only make his movies as long as he reminds everyone that "he gets the good stuff, Folgers® Brand Coffee, the best part of waking up."
Creating media has never been as cheap as today. My ex roommate has been playing in bands ever since I got to know him. First recordings were done on 6 track tape recorder an replicated to cassette. Then the first, big towers were capable of recording a handful of tracks with low quality. Now, all he needs to go and make solid recordings is a laptop and a semi-professional external sound card. The distribution costs drop to zero on the internet.
The equipment he uses to record is much cheaper than the room they rent for the band and the instruments.
People that create media for the sake of creating media can do so at an unprecedented scale. The issue is with those that want to make a living of being a media creator.
I think people who are happy to acquiese to the music recording industry pleas for pity are failing to observe a simple and normal economic event wherein the value of what is being sold is not what it was 10 years. Industries change and then they die all the time. There is little novel about music anymore compared with the joy once brought in a less media entrenched time by the simple pleasures of buying and listening to an album, say 20 years ago.
Your point can roughly be paraphrased as the commoditization of media creation processes.
Schumpeter's gale:
""process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.""
>and if you take away the ability for people to monetize media
He is talking about figuring out another way for creators to monetize their media without artificial restrictions on sharing/copying. He doesn't want to take away money from creators, just the copyright. And i couldn't agree more with this idea.
I worded my initial post incorrectly, but I'm not at odds with whats hes saying. What I'm trying to point out is that in many cases media has already begun to shift to this model. The model where there aren't any restrictions on sharing/copying is quickly becoming ad-sponsered content. And while it hasn't begun to effect music yet, its definitely in video (no one pays a cent to watch YouTube) and print (with advertisers astroturfing as legitimate articles on websites).
If its the case you agree with the idea, does that come at the cost where you open up a newspaper and 75% of the articles are actually written by corporations pretending to be journalists?
On the other hand -- I'd be happy to pay to avoid ads on youtube. It's one of the few streaming services I'd consider paying for (if I could) -- precisely because it's mostly user-curated.
Tarantino films make money at the box office, which has very little to do with copyright infringement. Sure, people can upload cams of film in the theater, but that's a very low quality product that hardly competes with the theater experience.
I'd argue that we have already. Creating media is expensive, and if you take away the ability for people to monetize media you get rid of a segment who create media for the sake of media. The only people left are those wealthy enough to do so, and are no doubt looking to protect/expand their own profit centers.
The extreme view of this is that now Tarantino can only make his movies as long as he reminds everyone that "he gets the good stuff, Folgers® Brand Coffee, the best part of waking up."