The "nonsense" I was referring to was the inability to dictate the terms of the sale. If a chef takes 2 months to develop a special dish for a very wealthy customer, you can be pretty sure that the price is going to be very high, and only the person paying the price will be enjoying the dish. Likewise, if the chef spends the same amount of time developing a special dish for general consumption, you can also be pretty sure that he/she plans on recouping those costs by distributing them across many customers' meals, the price of which is determined by the chef based upon how much the original cost was, and how fast he/she wishes to recoup the costs.
A fashion designer can't design a collection and enjoy exclusivity. A couple of months (if not weeks) later the fast-fashion store are going to have copies. They can't dictate the terms of a sale anymore than a musician that gets copied can.
So the fashion industry have worked out their own added value in forms of heritage, luxury and exclusivity. Just like people who sell open source add value with trust, support and consulting. And people who sell games add value with multiplayer, statistics and achievements.
Less copyright means more labor not less. More performances, more innovation, more consulting. If that's a good thing and when it's not is of course a discussion in itself.
TimJYoung|10 years ago
gozo|10 years ago
So the fashion industry have worked out their own added value in forms of heritage, luxury and exclusivity. Just like people who sell open source add value with trust, support and consulting. And people who sell games add value with multiplayer, statistics and achievements.
Less copyright means more labor not less. More performances, more innovation, more consulting. If that's a good thing and when it's not is of course a discussion in itself.