|
Hi Snppy and mobile readers
>>>>Ah, I seem to see where we concur and differ here. While your approach seem to me as delineating these them into two groups based on their motivation, I group them base on the consequences of their action.
Ok… but I am not sure why you would think this. A moral system, which is what we are really talking about here, based on consequences without call to intentions just wont stand up.
Judgements about these situations need to also look at reasons, not just effects. This is the case if we are talking about piracy, murder, industrial mishaps and, I guess, jaywalking.
>>>>>The p2p may just do it for his grandma (poor granny, now she is getting all the rap for listening to Bon Jovi! Should have stuck with Elvis on the vinyl record!),
LOL
>>>but such actions still lead, as like that of the hawker pirate, to inevitable financial losses on the part of content maker/distro.
That’s not true. That’s back to the “deprival of sale” argument made in this thread what seems like many moons ago.
It is not the case that any instance of piracy leads to financial loss to the content owner.
It is the case that some instances of piracy will lead to financial loss but these are the minority. Furthermore, in such cases the content providers, when they get with the modern, have many other avenues to take revenue that don’t rely own “data as property”.
>>>I feel its rather exciting right now as we are on like page 2 or 3 of DRM history and we are seeing how the delicate balance between technology, social norms and legislation play out the DRM story. And I see it as part of DRM growing pains. When the dust has settled, hopefully, we the consumers will not have to worry about being left out in the cold with some content that is "protected" from usage because the DAP OEM refuses to support an old DRM format, and we would also not have to pay through our noses for DRMed contents.
Absolutely. It is exciting. It also could be scary but I don’t think it will be. I expect my Granddaughter to say to me in 40 years time “You mean it used to be wrong to share music?” In much the same way as I could say to my departed “You mean it used to be wrong to be homosexual?”
>>>but have similar pricing like that of the $0.99 tunes!
I think you have hit the nail on the head. The battle shouldn’t be about legal, moral or technology issues, it should be about the price.
Most people seem to be willing top pay for stuff if the price is right. And when you remove the exclusivity of the pre-digital distributors the price should settle to just about right.
Xxx
Mat
|