Look, for most people here, we understand that something like the linux kernel took decades of man hours, if not a century by now. However, it's trivially easy to copy the result of those years of effort, even if the initial effort wasn't that easy, as I hint in my post. It turns out that such copying is legal and desired by the original authors, as it is much easier for them than it is for artist; still, it is a fact that the product is easy to reproduce while the act is not. This is at the heart of this whole conflict between the content-creators and the content-consumers today.
The matter of fact is that artificial[0] constraints on the product of such creations are the best method we have developed to ensure that the creators continue to be paid for their work, and I'm not sure of another, feasible way. Things like generous benefactors, be them individuals, institutions, or governments, are too few and not with enough capital to support enough creators without selling their products.
If anyone has a better idea, they could revolution history forever. Apart from Copyrights, Trademarks, and Patents, however, I know of no other way that will work.
[0]when I say artificial, I am speak matter-of-factly, not to offend anyone. The interesting thing is such talent and experience needed to produce such works is scarce, it's just the product isn't.
>The product is easy to reproduce while the act is not.
The act is getting easier and easier to reproduce, up to a certain basic level - which seems to be good enough for commercial purposes.
The arts have seen an unbelievable explosion of activity. There are more people writing, making art and music, taking photos, creating code, and everything else besides, than ever before - not just by a little, but by an astronomical amount.
The problem is that most of the work is eh-okay. Average-and-worse mediocrity is very easy to fine. Basic entertaining competence is less common, but still not rare.
And that seems to be all most consumers want - hence the success of 50 Shades of Grey, Twilight, and the rest, and their equivalents in other media.
In the past, culture was good at distilling out the extreme talent, so historically the arts have amassed a fine collection of game-changing geniuses, while allowing the eh-okay creators to drop into oblivion.
It's Salieri vs Mozart - commercially Mozart was the loser while alive, but not so much a few centuries later.
Today it's harder to find a Mozart because the modern equivalent is probably working for an ad agency, and has limited time to produce truly game-changing genius-level work.
And it might not sell anyway. And it would probably get lost in the noise even if it did sell.
The answer is probably the much-discussed living wage. Let everyone who wants to make art get on with making art full time, without having to worry about starving or being homeless.
Most of it will suck, some of it will be okay, a little of it will be jaw-droppingly awesome.
tl:dr; It's the socially-enforced dogma that art exists primarily for profit that causes the problems. Get rid of that, and a lot of the issues go away.
The matter of fact is that artificial[0] constraints on the product of such creations are the best method we have developed to ensure that the creators continue to be paid for their work, and I'm not sure of another, feasible way. Things like generous benefactors, be them individuals, institutions, or governments, are too few and not with enough capital to support enough creators without selling their products.
If anyone has a better idea, they could revolution history forever. Apart from Copyrights, Trademarks, and Patents, however, I know of no other way that will work.
[0]when I say artificial, I am speak matter-of-factly, not to offend anyone. The interesting thing is such talent and experience needed to produce such works is scarce, it's just the product isn't.