Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
And I'm talking about morality, ethics and law.
Even so you are still wrong. The "definitive" copy is the one the owner says is the "definitive" copy.
|
The law exists to serve man, not the other way around. And by "definitive" I mean the work, unencumbered by devices which have nothing to do with the work. So your assertion of my incorrectness is invallid. A book written by a writer has no artificial lock to prevent it from being shared. Last time I checked, my copy of Clash of King's didn't require a DNA check to read, nor did it require a receipt. The definitive copy of an electronic work of art is one free of any third party device intended to dissuade sharing. This has *nothing* to do with copyright infringement, theft, etc. The argument that the publishers use to seek damages is based on a flawed assertion as well, that the decline of sales corelates with the increase in "illegal" downloading. This has not been proven. What has been proven is an overall decrease in consumer good purchasing due to the economy, and increased reliance on cheap/free entertainment, including alternate competing forms such as internet news, free ebooks (Gutenberg), etc.
Keep your self righteousness to yourself.