ok, this might turn out quite long, but I have been thinking about this for a while, so here goes:
(oh, and I am not trying to justify pirating, I am trying to understand and analyse whats actually going on here. I also am not trying to claim that the creative sector should work for love, light and air)
Problem: Many goods, which traditionally have been scarce (i.e. paintings) or quasi-scarce (recordings, novels, games, to some extent ideas) have become virtually non-scarce due to digitization. (which leads to filesharing etc. and eventually to what is referred to here as piracy.)
Now, many of you are saying "this does not change anything - I still need to get paid" (which is a very reasonable request.)
I believe however, that this changes everything: Markets, by definition, deal in scarce goods. As soon as you are dealing with non-scarce goods, markets fail. The reaction then is, to make these non-scarce goods artificially scarce (i.e. DRM, or forcing people to play online in Diablo III), and by artificially enforcing the scarcity by "cracking down on pirates".
This introduction of a new class of non-scarce goods is in fact a huge cultural revolution. People will be talking about this in 1000 years (if there will be people). What is happening right now, is that the status-quo is judged and assessed by moral values and ideals which where not created to deal with this situation. This is why people are attempting to have a functioning market with non-scarce goods (I am repeating myself, but... I think its important to note the absurdity of it.)
That's in very general terms the actual problem, imo. In the specifics there are many more weird things going on
i.e.
What do we pay people for? (Focalist touches on this topic - I think his observations are spot on - I just think this notion needs to be taken further...) Should people be payed for the work they put into a product, or should people be payed for the impact their product has? As a musician, I might be payed to perform. Then I might receive additional royalties from the recording that is made of the performance. Artists (and I count myself in here too) claim that what they do is a job, like any other job. However, they have this dual income (I am not saying artists are rich, mind you). One comes from the work they put into it, and the other comes from the impact of their work.
This is wierd. A mechanic for example is payed for the hours of work they put into their job. No one would think of paying the mechanic a fraction of the benefit that a working car gives them. A secretary is payed for making somebodies work-life easyer. The secretary is payed for the work he or she puts into it. No one would expect the secretary to receive additional benefits, if his work ended up enabling her boss to get dirt rich.
I believe this dual income is nothing else than an excuse not to pay artists for the work they actually do. If artists are payed for a scarce good (i.e. their time) rather than a non scarce good (i.e. listening to a recording) the issue of the failing market vanishes together with the issue of the dual income.
Being an Artist is cool. Everyone wants to play in a band, wants to be a writer etc. It is fun, it is fulfilling. So what happens, is that we have a market, which is completely over-saturated. In addition to the non-scarce media, the scarce good an artist has to offer (their time) completely exceeds the demand. This leads to the simple truth.
If somebody is put off by Focalists high up-front fee, they can probably find a relative who does a job which is almost as good. Not being a photographer themselves, they probably wont even notice the difference in quality.
Being an artist is tough and will probably not make you rich. Thats just the way it is. Yelling for copyright will not change this.
Now. this makes no statement over the value of their work. I strongly believe that there can not be such a thing as too much art. However, there can be too much art for the market and that's where we are at. In other words, the market is unable to appropriately value Art. There is nothing we can do to fix this. As with the problem of the scarce good, it is simply not within the markets reach. (Which suggests, that they should be payed through other distributive measures, such as a cultural tax, but this is only one possible solution.)
Art is created within a context. No one makes original art, I repeat: Not a single recognized artist can claim their art to exist independent of other artist. Even Schönbergs 12-tone music (which I consider to be the most original thing which happened to music in the last 1000 years) is only understandable in the context of a reaction to his contemporaries. It has no easthetic value for somebody who does not understand in what musical tradition it is to be placed. (the same is true for Burzum and Lady Gaga).
Art is a dialogue. Jule Verne, for example freely uses figures and settings created by Edgar Allen Poe. The same figures, incidentally which lead Lovecraft to write his Mountains of Madness. Should Lovecraft and Verne pay royalties to Poe? Should Poe in turn pass them on to Hoffmann and Shelly?
(oh, and dont get me started on patents. With patents the situation is even worse, but that would be an essay in itself)
I believe not, I believe this dialogue is the very essence of art. Interrupting these processes by copyright laws can in fact very well backfire on the artists themselves. And it gets even more ridiculous: The german "Urheberrecht" automatically protects "your" "intellectual proporty" for 100 years. iyahdub: What benefit will you have if your music is protected in 100 years from now? There are people who benefit from these laws ... but they are not the artists.
I believe my main point is:
a) Some of the problems are due to techno/cultural change (non-scarce goods). Many of them are due to the art industry (over-saturation of the market, weird double payment systems). Either way - piracy is a symptom, and its odd to blame the customer for the symptom of a problem which they have nothing to do.
b) Many aspects of current copyright law are designed without any regards to what art is and what the artist needs. Rather they are designed for the benefit of the distribution industry. Artist and consumer should not be fighting here, but rather together attempt to get rid of the distribution industry, which in our time is nothing less than an outdated concept.
ok. there. thats what I meant to say.
Has anyone worked their way down? If so, please comment - I would love to get some reactions to the things I point out.
regards
p.