[hxa7241]

This is a seemingly persuasive argument, but it does not really work. It is an argument that makes us smaller than we are.

It asks us to compare what we have with nothing at all. Of course it is easier to think of what we have -- it is right in front of us. But the alternative is not nothing, it is to create something new. And it is not beyond the wit of humans to do exactly that. (And is not one of the quite orthodox appreciations of capitalism that it spurs innovation?)

When a real physical constraint is lifted -- i.e. everyone can now communicate and copy as much info as they want -- the thing to do is spend effort inventing ways to realise this advantage. You do not spend effort inventing ways to stop using it, as the content corps want to -- it is perverse really, is it not? it is a degenerate economy that does that.

[cageface]

Unfortunately many of us really are are quite small. There are far too many people out there who are all too happy to enjoy the work of others without feeling any obligation to compensate them for it. I like the Netflix subscription model but a $9 a month subscription isn't going to fund an Avatar or Toy Story 3.

[theflyingswami]

Keep in mind that's, $9 x 20+ million subscribers a month.

[cageface]

I'm a big fan of Netflix but that means that Netflix grosses less in one month than it costs to make one movie like Toy Story 3.

[WalterBright]

We may see a crash in the salaries paid to actors and directors.

[cageface]

And animators, and modelers, and shaders, and special effects technicians, and the engineers that write the software they use, and the sysadmins that support their networks etc. The names on the movie poster are the tip of the iceberg.

[atleta]

It's not the number of contributors that count but the total cost of their contribution. That tip actually costs a lot. The good old Pareto rule may well apply here as well. But however it is, if the market doesn't pay for it, then it's not needed. Also if the market is only willing to pay a fraction then there is probably a need for some innovation so that they can cut the costs.

[CWuestefeld]

When a real physical constraint is lifted... the thing to do is spend effort inventing ways to realise this advantage.

That's a little too glib. I think we are better off not looking for more ways to use our ability to kill more people faster. The right response to the atomic bomb wasn't to use it more, but to find ways to avoid using it.

I don't completely disagree with you, so I suppose there must be more nuance to it than either of us are picking up right now.

[hxa7241]

But we are not talking about harmful stuff are we? The whole question here is about making good stuff. If we have deemed it good to make, how can it then be bad to have more use of it? That seems a rather insurmountable puzzle, which an overlooked nuance seems unlikely to cover.

(A common answer might be: the bad effect is that it harms producers' ability to make money and survive. But this is circular: it only harms them because they are using a system that means they will be harmed.)

(A more sophisticated response would be to give the example of betting tips: there is info that is not really nonrival. But there we are not valuing the info as itself, but as it works as part of a system of rules of a game. That is not really like the info in question.)

It is reasonable to be cautious about practical matters, but these corporate interests have turned it into the grossest FUD. Ignore them and be forward-thinking.