13 Feb
2013
13 Feb
'13
5:22 p.m.
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 10:40:30 Paul Davis wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:29 AM, drew Roberts
<zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
Not at all, perhaps we are going to have to go to something like kickstarter /
indiegogo for funding to initial release for some.
Perhaps things will work just fine as they seem to in the fashion industry.
One would presumably not release the work to the
public until one had
gotten a
fair return on one's labour.
that implies only a private audience (and one contract-bound to not "leak"
the work) until one reached whatever one deemed a fair return.
which in turn implies the notion that to get a larger return requires a
public release that (in what I perceive as your worldview) in turn implies
abandoment of any ability to restrict access to or use of one's work (even
though one might still get paid something for it).
In actuality, one already gives up this ability as can be seen from the
constant cries of "piracy" killing the industry. For the calls for three
strikes and your off the net laws where strikes are accusations and not
convictions. But where you can be sure it is only going to happen when the
powerful accuse the weak, never when the weak accuse the powerful.
effectively, you're arguing for "if you don't have a rich patron and you
expect the public to pay for your work, you must give up any control over
your work, in the hope that the public will pay you for it anyway".
Please, this is really not the case. Although it is the fear.
given that most rich patrons want/need public distribution of the work you
do for them (think hollywood), i have a hard time understanding how this is
not tantamount to saying "if you want to get paid anything for your work,
you must give up all control over it".
Why should it be impossible for a movie to earn back its real costs in the
opening weekend?
Besides, if the only way for the current model to continue is to destroy
freedom and democracy, I know whcih I want to keep.
all the best,
drew