Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:
> Am 09.08.2011 04:06, schrieb nemesis:
> > Tim Cook<z99### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
> >> I think that, to an extent, it relates to the ability to reproduce the
> >> game/music/movie/whatever losslessly, an unlimited number of times.  It
> >> throws a wrench in the supply-and-demand model, because supply becomes
> >> infinity.  It makes the actual-value of the product 'zero'.
> >
> > We've come back to an age where starving artists gotta make live performances
> > (specially popular ones that strike a chord with youtube users) for daily bread,
> > not by selling their work to publishers.  That's what happened when everyone got
> > their very own press.
> >
>
> Just skimmed over the discussion you mentioned within your other post
> and this one really made me LOL:
>
> "Content creators would need to find new ways to monetise their
> creations (should they feel the need to do so), but the human desire to
> create will never go away."
>
> Well, many years ago I was a professional musician (bass player within a
> punk-rock band) and surely we managed it to live only from sex, drugs &
> rock'n'roll. No need to buy gas for the tour van, no need to buy new
> strings and especially no need to eat sometimes a burger.
> This sentence reminds me of the cliche that an artist should be poor and
> starving to create "true" art. Sure, and this kind of attitude makes me
> sick.

Precisely so.  But the nutjob there was advocating also for a society where
everyone could exchange services.  So, hey, you'd be able to get a beer in
exchange for a soul-soothing song at the end of the day.

I still have some faith in manking because that thread got so long from many of
us with some common sense trying to counter that bull.

Post a reply to this message