You all keep asking me how they will make money without copyright laws and I should have been more clear about this, I don't really care. I do not care if the creators are protected and can make tons of cash.
Then where is the Market incentive for people to be creative if anything they make can be stolen and capitalized on by others or be given away for free? Free Market theory would say, there is none, so no one will bother to be writers, musicians, artists, etc.
My point from the beginning was that making information available freely to the public is for the greater good.
Information, sure. Fiction? Entertainment? Are we entitled to free entertainment? This was a problem that was addressed by Gerry Cassale of Devo. He pointed out that people used to pay for music. Now, they don't feel like they have to. So essentially, music, art, film, is worthless to them. Is that how you feel also? Do you value music and art? If you are not willing to pay for it, it will cease to be made. Or, it will become like TV - loaded with commercials and product placements and only that which appeals to the lowest common denominator will be supported.
I do hope that they can make enough money to have a comfortable life, as I have the same hope for any other type of worker.
That is very generous of you. How do you propose that is going to happen?
I do not think actors, writers, and singers should be making millions when science teachers make thousands.
I don't disagree with that, but that is the market. We have a couple hundred "entertainers" and tens or hundreds of thousands of science teachers. That is how The Market works. You cannot on one hand praise The Market for always being right and on the other hand curse it for outcomes you don't want. Either The Market is perfect and self regulating, or it is not. You should decide which you think it is.
Considering the incredible gift of free information to the underprivelidged of the world,
Again, are we talking information - meaning useful, instructional data - or entertainment?
if Tom Cruise only made $75,000 this year I would have no problem with that. If he decided to quit acting because he couldn't get $40 million per film he can go fuck himself. A thousand talented actors would love to take his place, and would do it for an honest man's salary.
This is irrelevant to the point. It is not about Tom Cruise. Tom Cruise is not the only or primary artist being protected by copyright law. For every Tom Cruise there are hundreds of other people who are harmed - writers, editors, cinematographers, studio engineers, gaffers, etc. They all get paid from the same place.
Only the lazy or stupid artists can't find a way to take advantage of new technology and require a law to protect them from innovation.
I don't understand that leap of logic. Artists are now required to be businessmen and tech innovators or be deemed lazy and stupid?
And nobody is talking about being protected from innovation or technology.
Only the shit artists will stop creating because they can't make money from it. Mark Twain didn't make much from Tom Sawyer from a combination of factors, including piracy, but he didn't bitch out and quit writing did he?
Actually, he bitched about it quite a bit. He took the pirates to court, to no avail. He tried to get the Canadian rights to it, to no avail. And following jaime's link:
it also seems to have discouraged him as a writer. During the next five years he published only one book.
The internet isn't going away. Piracy isn't going away. It's just getting started. If they can't adapt, they will fail. We shouldn't be protecting an archaic, obsolete business model that stifles innovation and competition.
I'm all for changing the business model. Take a wrecking ball to the music industry. I do not think the entertainment industry properly compensates most artists
. I think talentless executives take the lion's share of the money from people who work very hard to create something the rest of us like. But you have not proposed a business model. You have proposed the complete devaluation of art.
The market will sort itself out...
I don't even know what that means. It sounds like a punt. You have no clue how creative people are supposed to earn a living so you punt - "Don't worry. The Market, the Glorious, All-knowing, Market, will sort Itself out." The market is people. People have to sort it out. And it seems to me abandoning protections for the people who create the art in the first place is not actually sorting anything out. It is giving up.
It looks to me as if you've painted yourself into a corner. You made a statement that you'd not really thought through and now you feel like you have to be committed to that statement, like you have to be consistent. But here's the thing - you don't. It is perfectly acceptable - even preferable - to back off of dumb things we've said. It would be fine for you to say something like, "My emotional reaction is I want stuff free and I've been taking it for years. So, I'm struggling to justify it. But I cannot figure out a fair way to make it work." Because, really, that is probably close to the truth.
And you owe me an apology for calling me a lair. If you have any integrity, it will be in your next post.