[seertaak]

> If you really, really think it's worth it, pirate Logic Studios and pay for it once you've made enough money.

Great -- now you're suggesting that I rip off programmers!

It goes without saying that I have too much respect for what I do, both in the programming and music domains, to break the law. It's wrong, and as you mention I can afford to pay, so I will. It's a question of principle for me; how can I expect people to do the right thing and pay for Spotify or iTunes if I don't follow my own dicta?

[unalone]

That's the thing: adjust yourself to this model. My mindset is that if you're planning on paying the programmers, if you think your music will earn you enough money to pay for Logic, if you're that starved for money - and only if you're that starved - then get it, because you can't pay for it, and because you might be able to pay for it in the future.

[seertaak]

Ok, as long as you do, although again, where did the programmers give you the right to enter into a deferred payment purchase, at zero interest? I know that sounds anal, but it's a question of principle for me. I'm sure that if you wrote software that you knew was of value, you'd feel the same right to monetize it's value as you see fit.

And, in any case, I think it's unfair to call this a "model". In one case, we're talking about a GBP 200 product, in the other -- spotify, it's GBP 10 a month for unlimited access to music. There are really not that many people in the UK that couldn't pay for that. And you can even get it free if you're willing to put up with ads. So there is a legal alternative. If you're living in the UK or US, my contention is that if you're filesharing you don't have a foot to stand on from a moral standpoint. It really is totally clear cut.

Your argument is effectively that because it's easy to copy music, it should be allowed. And that's the cyber-equivalent, to my mind, of saying that because it's easy to grab some fruit from a stand in Portobello Market and bolt, I should be allowed to do so! In fact, the only reason people don't do so is because they know there's a good chance they'll be held to account. And they'll be held to account because the state invests considerable sums in order to maintin a police force and courts, whose duties obviously include enforcing property rights. I don't see why they can't be enforced on the internet. And I understand that you can't make it impossible; that's obvious. What you can do,though, is make it sufficiently painful that only someone with significant amounts of spare time will want to use that method -- and at a risk of being disconnected or being taken to court. That could act as a sufficient deterrent to turn off most people provided you have an attractive alternative. And to my mind, the Spotify model increasingly looks like that model. Personally, I think it could extend to written content, like ft.com or nytimes.com articles too. That would be pretty cool. And videos. Basically anything. You either pay flat, or it's a single click (like iTunes) to buy an item of content. The motto should be: all my content, anywhere, anytime....but for a price!

Brave new world indeed! One where the customer gets what he wants, and the creator can make a living doing it. I think in the long run it's a fair and healthy deal. Where someone is charging in excess of fair value, people will simply cease to purchase that product and go to alternatives. Consumers will steer the creator to the fair price on the basis of their demand.