The same way I propose blacksmiths, phonograph repairmen and punch card programmers make a living: not doing those things. Just because some people can't make a living doing something does not mean the government should protect it.
Those are practical professions superceded by other professions/products/whatever that could do the same thing, better.
"Producers of information goods" is a far broader category, including authors, musicians, movie and software people; and one not superceded by something more practical, unless you consider twitter a good replacement for books.
And government protection to create a market is a fine idea - it's in the US constitution, for example. It just needs rebalancing.
I'm arguing that there is one profession: information distribution, and multiple ways to do it. Some of them involve creating your own content, some do not.
I am also not arguing against all instances of government created markets, by the way. Just saying that failure to be able to make a living in a way that people used to does not by definition necessitate being saved by the government.
> I'm arguing that there is one profession: information distribution
To me that is confusing, because in my mind distribution is a different act than creation of information goods.
Movie theaters, dvd's, netflix.... those are distribution, and I don't care too much if new ones arise and old ones go away. But I enjoy a movie once in a while, and would be sad to live in a world where it is no longer possible to do anything but the cheapest of indy efforts.
I am a UX guy. I care mostly about the user's perspective. From the user's perspective the end content is what ultimately matters. It doesn't matter who makes it. I think there's an argument to be made that the well could dry up, but I don't think it's a well substantiated one.
> I think there's an argument to be made that the well could dry up, but I don't think it's a well substantiated one.
There may not be proof either way, but if people do not have to pay for information goods, it only stands to reason that there will be less of them produced. Certainly, they won't go away entirely, but why would anyone produce a movie like Avatar if there is no legal way they can get paid for it?
