So it is only a tradeoff when they get all the money they possibly can by making the stuff less useful to us? Sorry, that is absurd. No one is saying they shouldn't be paid, just paid with a different model, that the tech has changed, and the model should change with it. Preserving the status quo, against the changes wrought by technical progress (a useful art resulting from scientific progress) is sort of the opposite of "furthering the progress" of those things.
Ok, fine, which model(s)? There's way too much dancing around this from many advocates of eliminating IP laws completely. I am not an advocate of keeping things completely as-is - the producers have too much clout - but think there would be a risk of tossing the baby out with the bathwater were there ever a serious consideration of radically curtailing IP laws. And by radically, I don't just mean shortening the terms, I would consider that quite sensible.
Well, First of all, I am not advocating completely getting rid of copyright. I am arguing for a change to it, and that there are business models that don't require draconian bullshit and law buying. But keep fighting that strawman if you want.
I would like to see copyright shortened to 2-5 years for exclusive distribution rights. I would like to see attribution requirements extended to say, 100 years. If you want to use the work, fine, but make sure you mention your work's pedigree. (altho at some point, its going to be either so known and part of the cultural zeitgeist that you don't need it and attribution requirements become a burden, or it won't matter, hence the 100 years). I would like to see unauthorized distribution fines go down to something reasonable, say 200% of the nominal cost at time of distribution + any profits made, and a reasonable fine on top of it (say $100). Since most people distribute for free, we should treat file sharing the same as a speeding ticket not a life changer - the fine system keeps the worst of the offenders relatively at bay. (it is bullshit position to think we should stop every last one of them every last time)
As for business models that work: Why do we need to know up front? Seriously, this here is a disingenuous argument. Instead, do like the tech industry does: stop propping up a bad business model with laws, and let the giants fade as better models come along and take their place. As the big companies decline or innovate, new ones will come along and mostly fail, but at some point, one will figure it out. I once heard someone say "silicon valley is just a big monte carlo simulation of business models". So lets just do that.
