Posted on 08/21/2002 10:34:16 AM PDT by Leroy S. Mort
And as to music, did Bach, Mozart, Ludwig von Beethoven, and Brahms? Did they get copyrights?
"come brain implants" - Geez, bvw, you're more of a pessimist than I am. But I believe your warnings of violence are moot come that point. ;)
And you probably shouldn't cite a struggle between logic and strength here, since today it is actually the file swapper that celebrates his strength, against the logic of economics, in the most meaningful sense of those ideas. He may, and likely will, win (by force) the battle over the foundations of intellectual markets. But he will probably lose more than he gains in the end.
Creators, by that point, will increasingly be distracted by sustenance labors - doing redundant things (immune from instant theft) they'd rather not do, or they squander their talents by doing. The trend toward dampening the profitablility of intellectual markets will have an effect no different than common price controls. Quality suffers first, then quantity.
I'm not one to believe the basic nature of economics changes with technology, simply because man's physicality is a constant. Until man separates himself completely from physicality as we now understand it, he will always need to eat. He will always need shelter. And if scarce resources required for sustenance need to be allocated among many ( most of whom, among billions, cannot be farmers) intellectual markets need to be preserved, enhanced, and managed as a means of recognizing emerging forms of human utility on an increasingly crowded planet. If we remove that market without first removing the reliance on physical matter, there will be economic danger the likes of which has never before been seen.
Many thanks for an interesting question, bvw.
That's idiotic, there are studio versions of songs, and live versions. Artists can press both.
Now, we can also add the remix version, and during the Disco era, the extended version.
"Ten years? Be honest... how hard were you really looking?"
Actually longer. This service you linked me to, was it available ten years ago, fifteen years ago?
"I found Morning Girl and In a Broken Dream in a matter of minutes."
No you didn't, you found exactly what I was talking about. You found them both in a CD with 13 or 14 other songs I don't want. But the recording industry wants to force me to pay anywhere from $10 to $12 for my one friggin' song.
Greedy.
All that the industry has to do is to recognize the fact that their customers want a new way to buy music. We want what we want, not what you're trying to shove down our throats.
Let me go into a site, and download individual songs, charge me fair market value (considering the fact that there will be minimal labor costs involved, no shipping, no disc, no case, no dead stock, the price should go down considerably) and let me do what I want to do. I'll be happy to pay!
As far as the Constitutional issue, the industry stood on the Bill of Rights when it suited them, and now the want to stomp on it because it suits them.
The nature of economics is to supply the consumer with that which he wants.
People want a new way to obtain music, and the industry will not face that fact.
No. The nature of economics is the mechanism by which scarce resources with alternative uses are best allocated. The talent required to create [whatever] is in itself a scarce resource.
People want a new way to obtain music, and the industry will not face that fact.
Thanks for entirely missing the point of my posts, and reinforcing my belief that pirates, as a symptom of addicion, expend great energy to deny the larger picture.
*sigh*
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.