>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.
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.