Quote:
Originally Posted by Format C:
Steve, you know the difference between steal REAL goods and make electronic copies of files, come on!
|
That is the million dollar problem, in a nutshell: Until a consensus is reached regarding the status of electronic files, i.e., whether they can be considered "goods of worth," "completely worthless," or something else altogether, much of the debate over the issue of copying-versus-stealing is... well, not quite pointless, but certainly premature (and possibly counter-productive, as the debate only seems to bring out angst and frustration in those who discuss it).
I maintain that any and all electronic versions of one of my books, for instance, have a net worth, set by me. The ease of production has absolutely no bearing on the cost, because the value is not in the production... the value is in the literature, and I have the right to choose what value to place on my literature.
If someone wants to obtain a copy of that book, they are obligated to pay me the price I set for that book. If they do not want to pay that price, they are within their rights to try to bargain a new price with me, or they can walk away and not make the purchase. They are not within their rights to take it and not pay me, especially since the book is not a commodity that they can claim to require. This is how goods have been traded for the past few thousand years, on every continent on the planet, and electronic or not, I see no reason why the practice cannot continue unchanged.
The issue of making copies of files you already own, for your own use, is a separate one, and one I personally don't have problems with. I restrict my considerations to obtaining copies of documents you do not already own, and whether a creator deserves payment for that file.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Format C:
The only way to definitely stop what you call "piracy" and what millions of people call "fair use" [and what I call strife of greeds] is to have an Authority knowing and controlling what everybody reads, watches and listens. And even if it's done with the best of non invasive DRM and with the purest of intentions, it's a damage for democracy, however you call it.
|
You're right... I would not call that "damaging democracy"... I'd call it "testing democracy." One of the powers of democracy is that it is designed to be malleable and self-correcting as the world changes around it (pending proper public participation in the system, of course). You can argue that we have such an authority over what we see and hear already... and we haven't devolved to anarchy.