That depends on which medium you're talking about.
Apps: that's my day job. It pays very well, thank you. But if SOPA passed, I'd be hurting because the internet would change dramatically. I need a working, open internet to be able to compete with large software development companies.
Music, Movies: I "moonlight" this. I'm sure there are tons of software guys who are good at music, video, or a little of both. Live concerts pay enough to make the whole pursuit enjoyable. They wouldn't pay the bills, which opens up another can of worms -- I think our current society discriminates against many forms of art, and disproportionately rewards the few that it does reward. This is in line with the way our society frequently discriminates against women, certain racial stereotypes and many cultures.
This post (and my other writing): I don't make money directly from it. But I think everyone benefits from the free sharing of culture. SOPA can pry it from my cold, dead fingers...
I'm glad you mention you build apps. I (finally) get that piracy isn't the real issue as far as music and movies are concerned. I see how they can make money despite copies of their work flying every which way for free but I don't understand how a software developer can be against copyright. It's one thing if you're all about the GPL and FOSS but those doing it as a living surely can't see sharing as a good thing, can they? If you're on the apple app store it's probably less prevalent but generally speaking, how can software developers make any money if they can't enforce copyright? And remember, not all software lends itself to the support model like ReD Hat.
I'm really torn. On the one hand I'm almost converted on the music and movie side of this but can't get on board because I still feel it hurts software developers. How does this not bother you?
I would happily sacrifice my ability to make a living writing software if it meant that all software was FOSS. That would absolutely thrill me to no end. I think that so much good would be done for the world therein that it would be ethically outrageous for me to object. I wouldn't spend that much less time writing software, either, because doing it 8 hours a day saps my will to do it during the other 8.
"I would happily sacrifice my ability to make a living writing software if it meant that all software was FOSS."
And I most certainly wouldn't. I use and contribute to open source, but I love development too much to do something else for a living. But I also have a personal life. I could not spend 40 hours a week doing another job, then spend 40 more doing development. I might spend 4 more hours doing development, and I expect that my learning curve would be severely stunted.
I think it's very unrealistic to think that passion alone could drive software development without the ability to spend most of your time learning and doing what you love.
And I think that applies to other creative endeavors, too. Yes, a lot of music gets created by amateurs. But I doubt Bach or the Beatles could have made the work they did if they had non-musical day jobs.
I personally don't think a basic income guarantee will fire passion.
I'd write software for art's sake even if I didn't get compensated for it.
However, I feel it is critically important to the discussion: Libre does _NOT_ mean Gratis!
To answer the question asked by billpatrianakos: "I still feel it hurts software developers. How does this not bother you?"
Software has been shared Gratis ever since it first existed (even before the PDP-7 era).
And yet software developers have been making far more than your average auto mechanic in all that time.
The distributors have been the ones most threatened by Gratis sharing. They can't mark up the software when they put it in a box and add a pretty manual (and add DRM or some form of copy protection, which only hurts honest consumers).
There will always be skilled hackers (i.e. developers), just as there will always be musicians creating music, even if the RIAA and friends disappear.
Gratis sharing is free advertising. The honor system is ultimately the only system of compensation that does not break in a system with no scarcity and unlimited sharing. Software has been born into that system; music and movies and writing are discovering that they now live in that world too.
Although it's new for musicians, hackers understand it intuitively.
Gratis sharing does not mean you don't get paid. However, if you go with a non-Libre distribution channel, you may not get paid. Artists who sign up with a label may end up paying the label for the privilege of performing. Admittedly that's an extreme case, but the fundamental theory of a non-Libre channel is trying to create artificial scarcity using computers where there is none -- so you only end up hurting your paying customers. Those who do Gratis sharing will only be affected marginally.
To get paid, just focus on providing the services to your customers. The customer is always right, yes, but also you should be able to see their needs more clearly than they can, themselves. In this way you become valuable to them as a source of continual improvement. Great musicians do the same.
If he finds sufficient reason to generate content, and that content competes with that produced by the RIAA, he's creating a competitive threat.
It's tough to compete with free.
That's precisely what Google does with its services in competing against Microsoft, because Google's revenue stream (ad sales) is unlinked from Microsoft's (OEM / site / direct software sales).
