"The DRA is superior to copyright because it encourages creation while providing information about consumer preferences without the market-distorting effects of a private property regime."
Small point: while I am not against the DRA and believe it is an idea whose time has certainly come, being essentially the first postulated reaction of the pioneers of P2P to the lamenting of certain artists and recording companies, the (now ancient) argument that artists need encouragement to create new work is a weak one, and the fear that artists would somehow stop creating new work even in a world where it would become virtually impossible to generate capital through its creation (which is a very unlikely scenario) is unfounded and slightly hysterical.
Certainly many musicians are hardcore capitalists, but I submit that very few musicians need a promised reward dangled like a carrot in front of them in order to create. That carrot is a spiritual muse, if you will, that's been firmly in place since the dawn of time. That carrot is in fact also the inexorable impetus of the financial machines that have been built up around the production of music, largely by the hands of non-artists seeking to take advantage of it.
Further, in regard to any and all of the musicians which would or already do feel their creativity effected negatively by the existence of P2P sharing, I think it's quite possible the world would be a better place if they did stop creating new work. There would be a paradigm shift away from music designed specifically to be a commercial object, and I would consider that a renaissance.
You may call me an idealist.
|