Shorter version: Is it called "intellectual property" or "intellectual artificial scarcity"? That should tell you which side won this debate.
Yes, yes.. Just like all these countries are perfect examples of democracies, because they have the word "democratic" in their names, right?
* People's Democratic Republic of Algeria
* Congo, Democratic Republic of the
* East Timor – Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste
* Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
* Korea, North – Democratic People's Republic of Korea
* Laos – Lao People's Democratic Republic
* Nepal – Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal
* São Tomé and Príncipe – Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe
* Sri Lanka – Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
"blah blah blah, you think your time is what they want?? lol, no its your money, they could care less if you read the book, listen to the album, it is and always will be about your money"
What you're saying is not wrong. At least not always. But it is completely irrelevant.
If I'm going to spend money on a book, I have to at least believe it is worth my time to read it, even if I end up never actually reading it. Plus, spending time purchasing a good is also spending time. That's why convenience is so important. Make me jump through too many hoops to buy your stuff and I just won't bother.
Attention and Time are scarce resources, indeed. Content is not.
"...many young people continue to see "free" as the appropriate price tag on music."
I am getting so fucking sick of this discussion....
Content creators, copyright holders, please, think about this.
Do you honestly think that you are competing for my dollars? Mere money? Really?
You are competing for something much more valuable. My time
Every minute I spend reading your book, or listening to your song, is a minute I am not reading or listening to something else. That's a minute of my life that I will never get back! What do you think that's worth? How do you even put a pricetag on that?
First, you need to grab my attention. Then, if you're lucky I will give you my time. After that, if I like your stuff, there is a chance that I will give you money.
If I don't know about you or your work, what chance do you have of getting my money?
If I don't think your work is worth my time, what chance do you have of getting my money?
I have the utmost respect for content creators. Authors, musicians, film makers, painters, etc, all of you. But you must understand that I don't need you to keep myself entertained.
Your music is not available on YouTube? Oh, I better run to my local record store and buy your.... No, actually, I will probably just listen to something else. I love music, but I can always live without your music.
I can't download the latest episode of a particular TV show for a decent price, in a decent format, without DRM? Oh, I better run and buy the... No, chances are I will just watch something else. There are millions of hours of cat videos online that will keep me entertained for weeks.
You've written a novel and you don't want me reading it for free? You think I'm stealing bread from your mouth by borrowing your book from a friend? That's easily solved. I'll just read something else.
Does that feel better? Me not reading your book? Not listening to your song?
How are you profiting from that?
The truth, that you don't want to accept, is very simple....
If I read your book, you are lucky! There are hundreds of thousands of other books that I'm not reading at that time. I can always get more money, but the time I spend reading your book, I can never get back. Think about that for a minute.
Wether I pay you or not, if I am consuming your content, you should be thankful. And if I give you money, you are one of the lucky few. Because I have plenty of options.
I absolutely love The Oatmeal, but I have to say that I'm not a fan of Inman talking about "content theft" as that concept is quite ridiculous in this context. Copying is not theft. As far as I know, when someone posts a The Oatmeal comic on another site, that comic does not magically disappear from theoatmeal.com.
Attribution is quite another matter though, and personally, I think it is much more important than copyright.
If I were in Inman's shoes, this is what I would have done:
* I would relax about my content being monetized by someone else in this way. A dollar earned by someone else on advertising on another site does not equal a dollar lost by me.
* I would sometimes upload material to FJ myself. If FJ gets millions of visitors, I'd try to convert some of them to fans.
* I would ask my fans to give proper attribution, and linking, when sharing my stuff on other sites.
I'm not saying that the FJ people have done nothing wrong here, but Inman has certainly also crossed some lines himself.
Think about it... When you are granted "Copyright," you aren't actually granted any substantial rights you didn't have to begin with. What is happening, though, is that other people's rights are restricted.
Here are some "rights" that you have with a work you have created:
If Copyright did not exist, you would still have these "rights," simply by having access to the work.
Now poof, you are granted "Copyright" for the work. What new rights do you get? I can only think of one: The "right" to sue other people for "infringement."
Now name some rights other people had for that same work before you were granted the Copyright, but that are now restricted. That's right, pretty much all of them. All of them and more if you ask the Copyright Extremists.
So, "Copyright" should really be "Copyrestriction."
I've actually begun viewing Copyright as a sort of religion, with the maximalists being the extremists. People such as myself, who are a against Copyright, are the atheists.
Proponents of Copyright are often citing dubious sources as evidence for their religion. Theirs is the Only True God. Without Copyright, society will collapse. Without Copyright, we're all just beasts, raping and killing at will. They refuse to listen to rational arguments, of course. They all get very offended when you question the validity of their claims, or suggest that the world would be better without their religion. Etc...
I've been saying this same thing for years when talking to authors. One of the most common argument for higher ebook prices I've come across is "but it took me two years to write this book, three bucks is too cheap! My time is worth more than that!"
If you want to charge $10 for a book that took you a year to write, should I charge $50 for a book I spent five years writing? It took me five times as long, so I need five times as much money per copy! Ridiculous....
You can't charge the customer for the time it took you to write the book!