I knew I had those links around somewhere...

Mike Masnick's articles ( Techdirt has effectively been his blog, later a group blog) have been around for a long time. In a nutshell, he posits that value isn't lost from something of which there is an infinite supply, so digital content providers don't have much of a leg to stand on when they cry foul over piracy, and that digital content providers should just "adapt" to the "everyone is going to copy" mentality and find other ways of making money. He's picked up an number of other causes along the way and makes pundit appearances to people who share his point of view. He's a better writer than a speaker.
He researches just enough to support his point of view and ignores anything that doesn't.

For example, since each unit in distribution doesn't actually "reduce" the supply of a piece of content, then no value is lost, and therefore makers aren't really losing anything. Sharing a digital copy of the tune Brown Eyed Girl doesn't deplete the supply or value of Brown Eyed Girl, and if Van Morrison expects to make money he should go on tour and sell t-shirts.

As a copyright holder (and outside of actual fair use), you can limit supply and / or control how a piece of content is distributed, and the cost,  in order to maintain its value. The limits and costs are everything in the digital goods business, both for the copyright holder and for the licensee. Here's a Poser example...

Most of my models for artistic use (anything you render that doesn't actually directly compete with the model itself) is usually anywhere from $9.95 to $15.95. Some people can afford it, others cannot. The ones that can and want to use them, know that the model isn't going to appear just anywhere because there is a price of entry and limits to the license. Their use of the model won't likely appear "tired out" from overuse. For example, if 20 religious or archaeological documentaries and 2000 amateur video people use my model of The Temple of Solomon, then the use of my Temple of Solomon will no longer appear innovative - its value is tapped out for them. And in that case, nobody wants to license it anymore. This is something well known in the stock photo and video market but less discussed in our market.

So yes, making a copy doesn't diminish the actual structure of my model or its infinite supply possibilities, but distributing many thousands of illegal copies, posting them on various share forums and pirate blogs (that can include things Id never let my model appear next to, for the same devaluing reasons) greatly diminishes my ability to ensure Im compensated for my work, the reputation of my business, and the way I distribute it to ensure its value to my legal licensees.

This is the sort of thing the pundits ignore. Their response is to tell me to suck it up and me and Van Morrison need to find some other way to make money.

Best regards,

chikako
Meshbox Design | 3D Models You Want