Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
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.
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.
|
You don't call a rapist "thief" because he steals a woman's dignity, nor you call a murderer "thief" because he steals one's life, do you?
They're far worse than actual thieves.
In analogy, the one who break copyright laws is not a "thief", the latter being far worse.
No space for discussion in it. At least in my country, where the code of laws give a clear definition of "thief".
About the "right to set a value": imagine that one day baby sitters start to lobby with the same power of oil companies.
Suddenly laws and bills are promulgated to forbid granmas to sit children, and to grant the BabySitter's Association a monopoly.
So they set a 1000$/hour price for their work.
Do they have that right?
I'm not sure.
In another case, Mercedes Benz sets a very high price for its cars, and lot of people pay for it, without any enforcement, and without any special law.
And every car producer in the world is using Mr Benz's ideas...
Why does this happen?
It's because every "copy" of a Mercedes SLK has an intrinsic value, and nobody can actually "copy" it without effort and cost.
So, Mercedes are sold "per-copy" and it actually works.
It has worked - even not without flaws - for artistic content also, as long the hardcopies had intrinsic value and added value.
But now, digital copies of art (or entertainment) have no intrinsic value (the real value is in the original content, not in the copy itself), and have less added value than illegal competitors.
To stick to a per-copy model, having the brute force of law as the only mean to compete and to grant "fair compensation" will just lead to a "war" between publishers and general public. And authors will be crushed in between.
The sooner a new and better model will be proposed and accepted the better for everyone.