> this is irrelevant as far as i'm concerned. They being able to make or not make a living is orthogonal. If they can't, then they should stop.
It's not orthogonal - it's central. Copyright law and IP law isn't some abstract thing - it's a law with a purpose - to protect people from having their work ripped off in a way that they can no longer work.
If journalists can't gather the news, then sure events still happen but Google et al won't be able to summarise them as they will be no reports.
If scientific journals can no longer afford to operate as nobody needs to subscribe because anybody can get the content free via a rip-off, then there will be no scientific journals to rip-off.
Surely stealing stuff and selling it on is convenient for both big tech and consumers - but it's not a sustainable economic model.
It's not orthogonal - it's central. Copyright law and IP law isn't some abstract thing - it's a law with a purpose - to protect people from having their work ripped off in a way that they can no longer work.
If journalists can't gather the news, then sure events still happen but Google et al won't be able to summarise them as they will be no reports.
If scientific journals can no longer afford to operate as nobody needs to subscribe because anybody can get the content free via a rip-off, then there will be no scientific journals to rip-off.
Surely stealing stuff and selling it on is convenient for both big tech and consumers - but it's not a sustainable economic model.