Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_mchale
Two thoughts with respect to this.
1. Morality (as opposed to ethics), is not something I accept as a changeable thing. Something is either moral or it isn't.
2. The distinction between container and content, with regards to books, is a false one. Ultimately, it is the contents, not the container, that make the book valuable.
I agree that the law has not caught up with the digital age, but I think anyone who is expecting copyright to be essentially waived with respect to the darknet is probably sadly mistaken.
--
Bill
|
Although you may not accept morality as a changeable thing, the fact is that it has changed considerably over time, and continues to do so. Take slavery for example, or votes for women, or racial prejudice. Views on these issues have changed a great deal in, say, 200 years. Underlying moral principles often remain pretty constant, but their application to a changing world, and a better understanding of it, lead to changing views about what is good and bad.
I would agree that the content of the book is what is valuable about it, but my point was that stealing a physical copy and making an illegal digital copy are different - which they are. The former removes a copy and leaves one less, while the latter creates an extra copy while leaving the original intact. I'm not arguing that illegal copying is OK, just that it's different to stealing a physical copy.
Back to the OT, my own preference would be for a system where one could license content, and then access that via any medium. That's what strikes me as fair, in a moral sense. So, I would say that illegal copying doesn't seem wrong to me if it is done in order to access content that you have already paid for. It does seem wrong to me if it's done in order to avoid paying for something which is available to purchase.
The challenge is how to manage such a licensing scheme in a way that is fair to both producers and consumers.