- ProPain -
Musicians actually can make money from audio recording. Consider these ideas: CD (material good), special edition CD for fans (Nine Inch Nails), donations (Radiohead)...
For movies, cinema has never been so high, and has legit value (you actually go out and enjoy the movie on a large screen).
As for writers, there is still a market for plain old books.
Overall, there are definite ways to make money out of cultural products. Just, why would I pay for something that is worth zero euro to copy? That is why I will never ever buy a mp3 or whatever or pay a monthly fee for digital files on iTunes or Spotify. This makes no sense to me. Basically, a digital copy is not a theft, it is a copy. When I copy, the original work is still there, it is not stolen. That is the new paradigm which is so hard to accept.
There are plenty of business models already existing or to be invented though.
Agree on advantages of digital distribution. BUT, before, I could buy a video game on a CD-ROM, install multiple times on different PC, play alone or with friends, offline or online. I have no experience with Steam, but from what I have heard, you are basically locked to one platform. How is that a progress? Trade the uselessness of a CD-ROM for more constraints?
Also it is just personal preference here.
- Shabba -
I am not an anarchist.
Free licences often/always require one thing: to cite the original author of whatever work. For example, all existing versions of Creative Commons licences have the item BY, which requires to cite the author.
I am not familiar at all with the pharmaceutical industry, and it is probably a bit off-track here. As it is probably a more sensible field than music, I suppose I have nothing to add to this debate regarding that.
I am not for a ban of intellectual property, rather for a major rework of that concept. Notice how much this has gone crazy since the early 20th century (thank you Disney).
There are solutions, but not much that majors/governments want to hear about. Think "global licence" (heavily debated in France lately) or "global patronage" (Stallman). These ideas enforce/propose citizens to pay a contribution to artists. As long as it is in the
law and can be seen as
fair, I have no problem against that.
Basically my point is: Technology has made some business models obsolete, concerned industries have to evolve or die. If I can get something for free (ie. technically there
is something as free lunch), why try putting it as non-free? This is not how economics work! My point is purely based on logic but, yes, has no compassion for artists, and even less to majors.
In the end, only the famous and rich artists could get hit by a new model. The vast majority of artists do not rely on selling records.