Personally I don't think vitals such as food or health care should cost anything. Because they are vital and you can't help yourself. You can't decide tomorrow to stop eating cause food is too expensive or because you lost your job. Therefore I believe selling food is morally wrong. But that won't stop companies from selling food because their interests come first.
As for the non vitals, well I can understand that they want money for their works and creations and these should be worth some if they are good. Unfortunately it is human nature for each to defend their own interests. So from that point of view It is in the interest of the corporation or company or author (or any other producer of a marketable product) to sell it and make as much money as possible. But on the other hand it is in the interest of the individual to get that desired product for as little as possible. And as little as possible can be "free" if the chance arises. And the chance has risen with the advent of the internet. So the question then would be: can the individuals be blamed for defending their own interest ? as every other company, author, corporation, government and so on, would do ?
Sometimes corporations and companies succeed to bring some individuals down as one can hear in the news and such individuals end up with impossible to pay fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars and prison time.
The corporation does not say: hmm maybe prison is too harsh, by sending this person to jail we take away his freedom, when this person only did what millions do on the net ...
No, they get that person to go to jail without pity and why ? because their corporate interests come first. So I say, fair enough, but when the tide turns and the individual becomes king and has more power towards defending his/her interest, don't blame him/her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthem
What be your thoughts?
|