Quote:
Originally Posted by HansTWN
The problem is that "copyright infringement" has, for many people, become a term that does not imply any wrongdoing. The difference to theft is that the original owner still has a copy, but the similarity is that the infringer now has a copy he has taken by illegal means. Copyright gives the owner the almost exclusive right to create copies (with fair use exceptions) and if you get yourself a free copy you have trampled on his rights and unduly enriched yourself. In the end, what is important is that the infringer has obtained something he has no right to get without paying for it. Arguing "the original is still with the author" is just ridiculous semantics, trying to justify a despicable act. Whatever you call that act is another matter.
|
Now THAT is a reasonable and defensible position that can be discussed.
The problem is that when people say "copyright infringement is theft", what they really mean is "copyright infringement is an evil, despicable act because it is theft". The idea being that if you can slide by the idea that copyright infringement is theft, then you've won the debate without having to actually argue the specifics about copyright infringement.
As to the "copyright infringement is despicable" argument, however, I'm not so sure. As I see it, copyright laws have been put in place to encourage the creation of new content, by helping creators to earn money from their creations. There's no inalienable human right to profit from your creations, and the laws aren't intended to defend them. It's all about what's best for society.
But what if society decides that's a crock, and that creators will keep finding ways to create even if they can't make much money from creating? Personally, I think we've seen lots of evidence of that with open source software, blogs, podcasts, YouTube and God knows what else. Sure, a lot of it is crap, but a lot of it isn't crap too.
I'm not saying that the average filesharer has gone through this thought process, or even cares about any of this. But what I have been saying is that copyright laws have NEVER been effective at deterring individuals from copying and sharing stuff. What has been effective has been the cost, difficulty and loss of quality with the copying processes available to individuals. Now that has changed, and a huge proportion of the population has no moral issues with sharing stuff like crazy.
So I'd say copyright is dead. Dead, dead, dead. And rather than arguing about how despicable filesharing is, we should be finding ways to keep creators creating quality content without copyright.