I agree with your viewpoint. I have no clue how making media distribution legal is supposed to help anyone. If consumers do not compensate artists, government has to take all of the responsibility. People have mentioned that the government can fund the arts just fine, but that is when it does not have a monopoly over its funding. If you argue that the arts will be supported by patrons of the arts, then the arts will be controlled by the elite, rich few, and unlike the current industries they will have no reason to pay attention to consumers (the industries are starting to pay attention). And idealist thinking that the arts will be maintained by the artist's love for their work, without care for compensation realistically will lead to a trickle of good art and nothing more, as somewhere along the line every good-willed artist will be lacking something because of the lost market. Publishers, instrument manufacturers, equipment companies and distributors will all have issues finding funds enough to support music, same goes with related industries for other arts. Such a system cannot readily support such a broad spectrum of genres as is available today.
Along similar logic, pharmaceutical IP rights need to remain protected, at least to some degree. I understand that drugs are very much inflated in prices (not to mention non-drug medical supplies, which are even worse), and I would like to see such profiteering end, but I would like to see medicine maximize its ability to progress. If people are so concerned about marketing dollars not going to R+D, how does a lack of IP rights help? Instead of trying to get the consumer to buy their drug because of the pharmaceutical benefits their copyrighted drug provides, they have to get the consumer to buy their version of the same drug over the other companies (Pepsi and Coke are close enough to the same, and they certainly like to advertise). Also, the companies are like any other- they work for profit. If there are no IP rights, there is no profit in R+D, except for the two days that they are the only ones with a new drug out, so they will likely have no interest in funding it at all. If you want to see more and cheaper drugs that are vital for a person's health, or their life, open-source pharmaceuticals is not the answer. Government subsidizing, along with funding termination if a company does not produce enough work towards beneficial drugs, might be something in the right direction (think education funding).
At school I am simply told Wikipedia is unreliable, that I should never use it, and that citing it would be utter silliness. I, among many students, realize the value of Wikipedia, and frequently use it in research (I know to use other sources to back it up if it's important, but looking up a Roman myth isn't something I feel compelled to double-check facts on). So, instead of reducing plagiarism (among other concerns over its use), its banning forces students to plagiarize, since they use it, but are told not to cite it, whether or not they also use other sources.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your viewpoint. I have no clue how making media distribution legal is supposed to help anyone. If consumers do not compensate artists, government has to take all of the responsibility. People have mentioned that the government can fund the arts just fine, but that is when it does not have a monopoly over its funding. If you argue that the arts will be supported by patrons of the arts, then the arts will be controlled by the elite, rich few, and unlike the current industries they will have no reason to pay attention to consumers (the industries are starting to pay attention). And idealist thinking that the arts will be maintained by the artist's love for their work, without care for compensation realistically will lead to a trickle of good art and nothing more, as somewhere along the line every good-willed artist will be lacking something because of the lost market. Publishers, instrument manufacturers, equipment companies and distributors will all have issues finding funds enough to support music, same goes with related industries for other arts. Such a system cannot readily support such a broad spectrum of genres as is available today. Along similar logic, pharmaceutical IP rights need to remain protected, at least to some degree. I understand that drugs are very much inflated in prices (not to mention non-drug medical supplies, which are even worse), and I would like to see such profiteering end, but I would like to see medicine maximize its ability to progress. If people are so concerned about marketing dollars not going to R+D, how does a lack of IP rights help? Instead of trying to get the consumer to buy their drug because of the pharmaceutical benefits their copyrighted drug provides, they have to get the consumer to buy their version of the same drug over the other companies (Pepsi and Coke are close enough to the same, and they certainly like to advertise). Also, the companies are like any other- they work for profit. If there are no IP rights, there is no profit in R+D, except for the two days that they are the only ones with a new drug out, so they will likely have no interest in funding it at all. If you want to see more and cheaper drugs that are vital for a person's health, or their life, open-source pharmaceuticals is not the answer. Government subsidizing, along with funding termination if a company does not produce enough work towards beneficial drugs, might be something in the right direction (think education funding).
At school I am simply told Wikipedia is unreliable, that I should never use it, and that citing it would be utter silliness. I, among many students, realize the value of Wikipedia, and frequently use it in research (I know to use other sources to back it up if it's important, but looking up a Roman myth isn't something I feel compelled to double-check facts on). So, instead of reducing plagiarism (among other concerns over its use), its banning forces students to plagiarize, since they use it, but are told not to cite it, whether or not they also use other sources.