One could argue that the whole purpose of society is to get rid of scarcity.
Creators being unable to earn income is a problem - but artificial scarcity is not a good solution, as it benefits the few at the expense of many. Imagine if everyone was prohibited from sharing news over internet because "free distribution of news harms the journalists who rely on newspaper sales" - that'd be absurd, wouldn't it?
Old-school copyright relied on the natural scarcity of paper and other distribution resources - digital age has lowered the distribution cost to zero, so the old model does not work anymore. Another model of rewarding authors is needed, one that does not rely on restriction of distribution.
> One could argue that the whole purpose of society is to get rid of scarcity.
Scarcity of resources has nothing to do with scarcity of artistic works. Literature isn't fungible like a commodity, and can't be grown or mined as needed. It's also not a professional service or a form of labor. You can't put a gun to a farmer's head and make them write something brilliant, the way you can make them farm potatoes.
One could just as easily argue that society exists to organize labor in a way that increases specialization and efficiency. The reduction of scarcity is just a side effect. Specialization breeds scarcity in every new speciality until it becomes universally reproducible. Art is the forwardmost outcropping of specialization - it exists in advance of what it describes being known or understood - and by definition it is always the most scarce speciality. The artifice in making distribution of it remain difficult is therefore an extension of the natural place of scarce ideas in a world of abundant things.
bheadmaster|3 years ago
Creators being unable to earn income is a problem - but artificial scarcity is not a good solution, as it benefits the few at the expense of many. Imagine if everyone was prohibited from sharing news over internet because "free distribution of news harms the journalists who rely on newspaper sales" - that'd be absurd, wouldn't it?
Old-school copyright relied on the natural scarcity of paper and other distribution resources - digital age has lowered the distribution cost to zero, so the old model does not work anymore. Another model of rewarding authors is needed, one that does not rely on restriction of distribution.
psychphysic|3 years ago
BAM you just blew my mind at quarter to 8 on a Friday.
noduerme|3 years ago
Scarcity of resources has nothing to do with scarcity of artistic works. Literature isn't fungible like a commodity, and can't be grown or mined as needed. It's also not a professional service or a form of labor. You can't put a gun to a farmer's head and make them write something brilliant, the way you can make them farm potatoes.
One could just as easily argue that society exists to organize labor in a way that increases specialization and efficiency. The reduction of scarcity is just a side effect. Specialization breeds scarcity in every new speciality until it becomes universally reproducible. Art is the forwardmost outcropping of specialization - it exists in advance of what it describes being known or understood - and by definition it is always the most scarce speciality. The artifice in making distribution of it remain difficult is therefore an extension of the natural place of scarce ideas in a world of abundant things.