[rewind]

This sounds nice, but the problem is that the author creates value, the downloaders receive value, but no exchange is made. The idea that the author has to create MORE value to MAYBE be able to participate in an exchange is just a weak argument for people who don't want to admit that an exchange should take place right off that bat, and if not, the downloaders should not receive any value from the author (i.e. don't download and read the book).

[marknutter]

> This sounds nice, but the problem is that the author creates value

Ok, so what type of "value" are we talking about here and what determines this value? Is it economic value? The only reliable way to determine economic value is scarcity. If something is abundantly available (like oxygen or sunlight) its value in this regard is exactly zero. Anybody can obtain it and nobody can prevent it from being obtained. So in that regard I don't buy the argument that the artist has created economic value.

They have, however, created intrinsic cultural value. But cultural value is a completely subjective metric. How do we determine this value? Perhaps by counting the number of people who "appreciate" the art by obtaining it, legally or otherwise. But that would suggest that popular art is always more valuable than unpopular art, which we all can probably agree is false.

Starving artists are caught in a catch-22 situation. Until they become popular, their music is essentially worthless. Pirates, by copying and distributing their music for them, are actually adding value to their art. Most starving artists have a hard time giving their music away, let alone selling it, and I've yet to see one budding artist get upset about their music going viral. At what point does the artist stop encouraging the free and open spread of their art and start discouraging it by enforcing copyright law? And would they not be hypocritical by doing so?

[res0nat0r]

>Pirates, by copying and distributing their music for them, are actually adding value to their art.

Except where they don't add value by pirating something they otherwise would have paid for if it wasn't easily available to pirate with hardly any downside risk.

[chongli]

>This sounds nice, but the problem is that the author creates value, the downloaders receive value, but no exchange is made.

That's where you're wrong. An audience is value in and of itself. The trouble most authors have is with leveraging that value. Traditionally they'd handed the keys over to a big publisher and hoped for the best -- a sucker bet if I'd ever seen one. Now that the exclusive power of distribution has been stripped away from traditional publishers there's actually more opportunity than ever for an author to find and derive value from an audience; it just takes more savvy (and less luck).

[cobrausn]

> An audience is value in and of itself.

An audience that does not pay for things is of limited value to someone who needs money to keep making things.

[marknutter]

That's a pretty naive view of the situation. An audience who perhaps doesn't pay for art but does help spread the word about that art is indeed valuable. Perhaps even more valuable than someone who pays for art but tells nobody else about it.

[cobrausn]

Sorry, but the naive one here is you - a bunch of pirates telling a bunch of other pirates about this awesome new thing they should pirate doesn't really help you, the creator. But by all means, rationalize away.

Also, why does the one who purchases it have to not spread the word and pirates do? Is that how this whole argument works? A paying customer is probably just as likely to inform other paying customers about this purchase he just made. More likely, in my experience.

Look, there is likely a critical mass of piracy that is concurrent to a rise in purchases as something grows in popularity and becomes part of the cultural zeitgeist. I remain unconvinced that the piracy causes it, and isn't just a sign that whatever is being pirated is good and would is gaining awareness and marketshare, but sure, I'll just go ahead and give up on that argument. But if you don't reach that critical mass, which by and large, most don't, then you are just gaining an audience that isn't helping you at all.

Also, just to be clear - I don't view all piracy equal. When I talk about it, I'm primarily talking about game piracy.

[ZeroGravitas]

This thread started talking about the value that readers provide. People listen to the Beatles partly because people listen to the Beatles. Where's the direct cash payment for that value add?

If musicians aren't going to reward the people that advertise their work then they shouldn't release it in the first place.

[r0s]

I think we can all agree the problem with publishing is getting read. There's your value. Force the sale early and you trade that for something else.

Mince about ideology all you want, this is the market.