Digital Copyright Debate

Far fewer people could make a living producing and selling IP (music, movies, books, code, etc...) if the first person they sold it to was free to either give it away or sell it for 50% of what they'd paid for it.

I don't "take" anything from anyone; I copy my Bieber, and you still have it. People who care about Bieber are still supporting him financially; people who don't, they wouldn't have bothered anyway. Since production and distribution costs have basically disappeared, supply is now virtually unlimited; economic theory tells us that the market price is now zero. Harsh reality, but that's the truth. Any law implemented to alter this state of things is simply trying to make the water flow upwards.<p

You are asking for the impossible, people are not going to pay for what they can always get at better quality for $0. Fans are happy to curate the art the like and will always do a better work , and for free.The only thing that might make sense is if they distributed an original instead of a copy, i.e. a different movie to every user, a different song etc. Copyright is just not compatible with the digital world, it worked for a while copies were physical, but now we re going back to the pre-c

I would argue that what copyrights should do is give rights holders the exclusive right to make a profit off of them - other people should not be able to simply steal your ideas and sell them. That said, copyright does not mean that you must be paid for your work. If you can offer a service that people want to pay for, by all means go ahead. If people are not willing to pay for your work, find another job.Back when distribution cost money, it was a reasonable service that was provided. Specif

sure - let's have a debate about it. either way you're depriving the creator of revenue. what's your argument? probably something about the fact that since it can be copied for free then it's not worth anything?

This happened to music and TV/movies:People pay relatively little per album, movie, or show — which is made up mostly in upsells (merchandise) or hosted versions (concerts, theaters).I think that may just be the fate of easily copied IP — which is good for society.

No. You're ignoring the reality that digital assets aren't like cars. Close to 100% of the cost of creating a book, movie or song lies in the creation not the duplication. If all of the audience copies it for free instead of buying it, the creator makes nothing.It has ZERO to do with whether the book store is deprived of the use of the copy. It has everything to do with whether the creation costs are split evenly amoungst the users.Here's an assignment for you: imagine writ

It will pay less without copyright.

Since we don’t have a “Basic Income”, to survive in society you have to provide value to others¹, i.e. make money. If you want to spend your time being an artist, you still have to make money.The cost of any widely available item will trend towards its marginal cost. A non-rivalrous good with zero marginal cost will therefore trend towards a price of zero. Digital copies of things fall under this category. Therefore, you cannot expect to be able to make money by having a profit mar

> Your consumption does cause them a loss, this fallacy needs to quit being repeated.Repeating this doesn't make it true. A specific pair of jeans costs a specific amount to create from raw materials, and if not paid for causes a loss. The situation with a set of bits being copied is subject to interpretation and I don't see why your interpretation is any more valid than mine or anyone else's.My paycheque is the result of an agreement between me and my employer, who does believe the ou