Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is one apocalyptic scenario here that everyone ignores: it is monetary compensation that keeps the social norm. Remove that, make it so only the rich or the obsessed write, make music, etc, and they will increasing do so for their own ends, because there is no reason not to. Social alone approval will motivate very few to commit to the amount of work necessary for most creative endeavors. On the surface, of cou…
I think everyone ignores it because it's so far fetched (even if they go as far as assuming copyright == monetary compensation)
Disney could operate private theatres that threw out and banned people with recording devices, but how could home distribution function.
For popular work, we are back at the pre-copyright world of patronage.
Popular appeal might lead certain rare individuals to monetary compensation in academia, but this, I would say, will be country and culturally dependent. In France, for example, I might see it, but not the United States. And it might lead to a certain amount of tribal-production to sustain the replication of certain cultural norms, but in order for that to e so the trend of production and consumption previously adhered to in these industries (from the consumer viewpoint) will have to be reverse: the consumer will be paying patronage in advance of the creation of the work which will then be mechanically mass reproduced upon release. However, I think a smaller amount of people than currently consumptive model of media will be as likely to switch wholly to a 'pig-in-a-poke'-model. Even with things like netflix, the primary draw has always been that which pre-exists, that which the consumer already knows to be available, and its primary value is not weighted on what necessarily 'might' be produced in the future. People might be willing to fund such models through 'micro transaction', however, any individual funding themselves, thus, would necessarily require a proportionally larger base of funders; however this would have the function of keeping the cultural mytho-poetic framework in check, producing what commonly referred to as 'the lowest common denominator'. Also, however, even if someone were to make a living in this manner, they might not what to in that, no matter what survivable level of income they may derive, a Disney would then, through the sheer economy of their scale, be able to transform that, now mechanically reproduced work into something distributed through the private theatre system at no cost for the acquiring of the source material. This alone may be a sufficient psychological demotivator for many, and present a common source of burnout (thus requiring a change in employment), or even an obstacle to many taking up the profession at all.
The question remains, if the so-called creator is likely to get no monetary compensation, and little in the way of social capital anyway, what will induce them to create any works besides those they want to create. The problem is that 'artistry' in the mytho-poetics of most western countries attains a somewhat religious significance, but the most of its practitioners (or at least those who mange to make their primary living at it) would leave so-called creative fields for greener pastures; it's a job.
(I suppose I should add here that I am very much against to current copyright system as it stands now, though I realize my reply might indicate otherwise. I do, however, become aggravated when the attitudes of so-called consumers amounts to a type a slavery where they want what they want [produced but want it for free, resembles too much those companies that have baited artists and writer with 'exposure' for far too long. As it stands, what is said about the disruptive potential of the internet aside, most writers and artists make what they do (and paltry sums at that) by effectively signing over their copyrights in perpetuity to what amounts to intellectual property holding companies. So the law may say the author owns it, but to see anything from it (in the vast majority of cases) they have to give that right away, and then so-called consumers come along and claim (purely to pinch pennies) that authors should relinquish even (and presenting no alternative) that is, to me, as aggravating as the media conglomerates who do the same.)