> The freak storm in your metaphor is actually the aggregated behavior of individuals.
No, the freak storm is supposed to represent the development of digital copying technology. (The aggregated behavior of individuals is instead represented by the crowd of onlookers.)
> ...and then adopting a hectoring moral tone
I was actually trying to discourage such a “hectoring moral tone” by discouraging such name-calling as “parasitic, adolescent, [and] greedy”, as displayed by the post I was replying to. Instead, I suggested trying more constructive approaches to recover some profit in the unfortunate situation.
> Then you conclude by suggesting that maybe the era of large statues is over, and they have no value.
I did not mean to suggest they have no value, I merely suggested the possibility that it may no longer be possible to get paid for making them. (At least, not in the same way as before.) There are a great many things which would be of great benefit and value to large masses of people, but for which it is nevertheless not possible to get paid. These things have value, but you can’t get paid for doing them.
> Why should the people who invested the substantial labor and capital required to create such an elaborate work not enjoy a property interest in it?
Because merely expending effort does not warrant payment. This is a classic “sweat of the brow” argument, and it doesn’t work. It doesn’t matter that you work hard – what matters is what you can get people to pay you for.
> And what of films that have not yet become profitable, notwithstanding their significant cultural quality?
What of them? You seem to presuppose that movies should continue to be made in the same manner as always, and therefore, their creators should be compensated in the same manner as have been done. I suppose no such thing. If a business model can no longer be made for them, then movies may be a thing of the past.
I am not ready to create a perfect surveillance state in order to preserve the old business models, now obsolete due to technological developments. Yes, a perfect surveillance state is, in fact, what would have to be developed to prevent people from “looking at the statue”, so to speak. Witness first the new role of copyright – initially only applicable to those who owned printing presses, in effect an industrial regulation – which now regulates almost everything a person in their home can do on a computer. Witness secondly the rise of DRM, and the creation of legislation which makes it illegal to circumvent it, and even to talk about how to circumvent it. Witness further the creation of closed platforms; computers which you supposedly own, but do not actually control and which you cannot actually control.
One cannot be said to be able to live in such a society, but one can live without movies. The choice is obvious.
No, the freak storm is supposed to represent the development of digital copying technology. (The aggregated behavior of individuals is instead represented by the crowd of onlookers.)
> ...and then adopting a hectoring moral tone
I was actually trying to discourage such a “hectoring moral tone” by discouraging such name-calling as “parasitic, adolescent, [and] greedy”, as displayed by the post I was replying to. Instead, I suggested trying more constructive approaches to recover some profit in the unfortunate situation.
> Then you conclude by suggesting that maybe the era of large statues is over, and they have no value.
I did not mean to suggest they have no value, I merely suggested the possibility that it may no longer be possible to get paid for making them. (At least, not in the same way as before.) There are a great many things which would be of great benefit and value to large masses of people, but for which it is nevertheless not possible to get paid. These things have value, but you can’t get paid for doing them.
> Why should the people who invested the substantial labor and capital required to create such an elaborate work not enjoy a property interest in it?
Because merely expending effort does not warrant payment. This is a classic “sweat of the brow” argument, and it doesn’t work. It doesn’t matter that you work hard – what matters is what you can get people to pay you for.
> And what of films that have not yet become profitable, notwithstanding their significant cultural quality?
What of them? You seem to presuppose that movies should continue to be made in the same manner as always, and therefore, their creators should be compensated in the same manner as have been done. I suppose no such thing. If a business model can no longer be made for them, then movies may be a thing of the past.
I am not ready to create a perfect surveillance state in order to preserve the old business models, now obsolete due to technological developments. Yes, a perfect surveillance state is, in fact, what would have to be developed to prevent people from “looking at the statue”, so to speak. Witness first the new role of copyright – initially only applicable to those who owned printing presses, in effect an industrial regulation – which now regulates almost everything a person in their home can do on a computer. Witness secondly the rise of DRM, and the creation of legislation which makes it illegal to circumvent it, and even to talk about how to circumvent it. Witness further the creation of closed platforms; computers which you supposedly own, but do not actually control and which you cannot actually control.
One cannot be said to be able to live in such a society, but one can live without movies. The choice is obvious.