> But the fact remains: people who invest a nonzero sum of money in the creation of content would probably like some way to recoup their investment. Or else they need to have deep enough pockets, or deep-pocketed patrons, to be able to abide simply giving it away outright.
There's a chance that some people may just enjoy creating art without requiring compensation.
Sure, but those people are (by definition) not professional artists. There is a demand for well crafted art, people will certainly pay for it, but the old model (RIAA/MPAA) doesn't work and is counter-productive.
It seems that the question is not "should artists get paid," but "what is the best model for artists to get paid?" For example, if all music everywhere was always free for personal use, musicians would still be able to make money touring and selling merchandise and licensing their songs for commercial use.
True. I'm mainly concerned with the business aspect of the content world, however. I think the world should be able to accommodate both, and so I think it's an interesting exercise to figure out how content actually can be monetized.
If you admit that art will always exist regardless. Then why is it important that it is monetized at all?
Personally I believe that not only arts will exist. But it will also be funded. Just look at kickstarter. But I don't understand why some people feel that we must find them better business models. Art will always exist even if we don't. So why does it matter?
There's a chance that some people may just enjoy creating art without requiring compensation.