A great recent counterexample to this is Avatar, right? Super expensive, all financed by Cameron, right? Made tons of cash.
There will probably be less made, you're right. But they'll still get made.
There will probably be less made, you're right. But they'll still get made.
"No IP" does not mean "You can't charge for things." Enough people would rather go to a movie theater than get on Bittorrent that he made his money back.
Side note: I was one of those people. I wear Pirate Bay tshirts around, I'd throw out all IP law if I was in charge... but I did pay money to go to the theater to see Avatar. Going to the theater and getting that crazy huge screen, great sound system, and (maybe) the 3D was totally worth it.
The hook with Avatar was that it was a spectacle deliberately designed to be seen in 3D on the biggest screen possible, to the extent that there's very little point not seeing it in a movie theatre.
It's a unique example and its impact (and profitability) would be lessened by a) competition by similar movies and b) greater adoption of home 3D hardware.
IP is a pretty new concept. Things have worked really well for a long time without it.
But never before in history have we been able to copy media ad infinitum for practically zero time, cost and effort. It's always required time, an educated, talented person to copy, or resources that had a real cost.
In the case of the 3D printer the only real expense is the plastic used to print the object, which is awesome only for those who manufacture the materials.
Then things like this happen: http://open3dp.me.washington.edu/2009/10/sugar-sugar-powder/
> The cost of this mix is $0.15 – $0.30 per pound!
True, but i guarantee that Movie theaters would rather get on Bittorrent rather than pay millions of dollars in fees to James Cameron. The only thing stopping them is IP laws.