"very few content creators get remuneration for their creations"
In my e-book I point out that in fact, the effect of copyright has always been reward the owners of the technologies of copying, not the owners of the copyright. This is due quite simply to the fact that copyright does not exist until the concept has been fixed in a reproducible form, and as soon as it does the benefit accrues to those who control the reproduction, not those who created the concept.
That's why arrangements such as "Not an electronic Rodent" describes above are so appropriate: the creator works for and is paid by the owner of the reproduction technology. They take the risks on monetising the content and the creator gets a guaranteed income. This is all about risk management and has occurred since at least the Renaissance ...
My book can be bought here: http://www.huge.id.au/shop/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=51
"Copying does NOT prevent him from making money. It merely removes a specific SALE from his revenue stream"
This is true, but doesn't removing the sale from the revenue stream have the same effect? I mean, if the copy can only be obtained by making an authorised purchase, then allowing a copy without the purchase reduces the *probability* of a sale, surely ... it just seems a little like technical hair-splitting to argue this way.
It's far more constructive to argue that without the free copies being available, less potential purchasers would know about the track's availability and thus less likely to buy anyway. That has been Corey Smith's experience. Or that without the free copies, potential supporters are less likely to be aware that the artist exists, which is more up our alley ...
But the essence of your comment is spot on. Well said.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Dr Huge.
Copyright beneficiaries
Mike said:
"very few content creators get remuneration for their creations"
In my e-book I point out that in fact, the effect of copyright has always been reward the owners of the technologies of copying, not the owners of the copyright. This is due quite simply to the fact that copyright does not exist until the concept has been fixed in a reproducible form, and as soon as it does the benefit accrues to those who control the reproduction, not those who created the concept.
That's why arrangements such as "Not an electronic Rodent" describes above are so appropriate: the creator works for and is paid by the owner of the reproduction technology. They take the risks on monetising the content and the creator gets a guaranteed income. This is all about risk management and has occurred since at least the Renaissance ...
My book can be bought here: http://www.huge.id.au/shop/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=51
Excerpts can be read at the link above.
Cheers,
Dr Huge
So?
There's a Long Tail of apps. Why is that suprising? makes perfect sens and just repeats a pattern that's well documented in humanity ...
Re: theft
@Richard:
"Copying does NOT prevent him from making money. It merely removes a specific SALE from his revenue stream"
This is true, but doesn't removing the sale from the revenue stream have the same effect? I mean, if the copy can only be obtained by making an authorised purchase, then allowing a copy without the purchase reduces the *probability* of a sale, surely ... it just seems a little like technical hair-splitting to argue this way.
It's far more constructive to argue that without the free copies being available, less potential purchasers would know about the track's availability and thus less likely to buy anyway. That has been Corey Smith's experience. Or that without the free copies, potential supporters are less likely to be aware that the artist exists, which is more up our alley ...
But the essence of your comment is spot on. Well said.