Quote:
Originally Posted by vivaldirules
Ahem!
My upbringing (most people's, I'm sure) makes me skeptical of comments like "Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy." It strikes me as an easy way to rationalize one's theft - a bit like saying that if we steal lots of oranges from the grocer everybody will want some from him. But, to avoid prejudging, I'll shut up and go away and read the article and think about. Thank you for posting the link.
|
But you, and I, were brought up in an analog world (I assume from your statements). The generations coming after us have a different concept of "theft". You equate digital content to physical objects, but the generations now growing up don't have this equation on hand, because of their own experiences. it's taken me a long time to shake off my own ideas from my own upbringing, but I finally understand that "Piracy" has nothing to do with theft in any way shape or form. Pirates buy a lot of products, some would say a lot more than the average consumer. Also, what of those who can't afford these artifacts of culture, these experiences that might become shared experiences over time? We already have libraries, where books, dvd's and music can be had for no money at all. Are they also thieves, or not because we only 'loan' from them? What is "Piracy" if not the sharing of information freely without restriction to anybody who can get connected? What if there was no money to be had at all in the creation of culture, would it suddenly stop and cease to exist? I doubt it. Creators create because they have to, because it's a need inside them, not just a want.
Now let's say those oranges of yours were self-replicating and the stealing of one didn't lessen the number of oranges available on the stall, then how could it be theft? If nothing is taken away from the whole, then nothing is missed, nobody is deprived. You can't be deprived when the product is infinite.