[scotty79]

> Why would Disney/Marvel go to the effort of creating the Avengers movies when those movies could be shown freely by movie theaters?

Maybe we could wait a bit for cool movies when technology advances to the point where they can be made by few dedicated people with off the shelf hardware instead hundred million budget that needs to be propped up with additional millions to trump up the hype so it can be earned back?

So many things made possible by copyright that we are accustomed to look like severe pathology when you look at them with fresh eye.

[sosborn]

> Maybe we could wait a bit for cool movies when technology advances to the point where they can be made by few dedicated people with off the shelf hardware instead hundred million budget that needs to be propped up with additional millions to trump up the hype so it can be earned back?

We aren't far away from that, but it's important to remember that creators now have the option to create without attaching copyright to a work. Copyright isn't mandatory. Creators tend to choose copyright because it is in their best interest.

Also, it isn't mandatory to consume copyrighted media. Just find something else that isn't encumbered by it if you wish.

[scotty79]

It also isn't mandatory to respect copyright. It's unenforceable and a lot of people ignore it happily.

> Creators tend to choose copyright because it is in their best interest.

And some peole choose to emit tons of CO2 because it's in their best intrest. The question is, is it in everybody's best interest.

A lot of people would be culturally poorer and more isolated if not for piracy and 100% secure copyrighted content wouldn't be as popular.

[sosborn]

Copyright is not equivalent to climate change.

What does it mean to be culturally poorer? Attaching importance to pop culture knowledge sounds like the real problem.

[scotty79]

Of course it is not. What I'm saying is, optimal economic decissions of some people might not be good for people in general. When it comes to copyright we can't consider only the good of the creators and people who paid creators.

Copyright is not just for popculture. Also learning materials, software and culture in general. Tonnes of people in the world got their higher education on pirated software and xeroxed books.

[_2d30]

If your "fresh eye" take on copyright is "Hey man, one day just a few dedicated people will be able to do this and we should just wait til then because it will happen and those people will do it for free and it will be of equal or greater quality to what we have today or would have in the future regardless" without a clear path to that being a reality nor a clear argument for why these people will actually do that, then I'll stick with the "severe pathology" which to date is still clearly the best means through which resources are put to productive use.

Long live capitalism, free choice and property rights: the greatest human forces of all time; the creators of prosperity.