|
Sometimes I think that Harry is the only honest person here, at least by his own rigorous standards. Personally, I think geographic restrictions are an abomination for digital products, and I have no moral qualms about avoiding them. I also believe that intellectual propery laws have become very bad laws. In most countries they have lost any semblance of balance or fairness, and are viewed by many as either a laughing stock or simply irrelevant. No matter how often it is repeated, intellectual property is not "property" in the sense of tangible property like land. Nor is it appropriate for legislation to try to make it so. Modern competition policy takes the view that monopolies are bad. When laws grant a statutory monopoly, it is a privilege accorded to the grantee. The theory is that the harm to the public of granting the monopoly is more than offset by the greater public good. Unfortunately, with Copyright in particular, this has long ceased to be the case. The rights of a copyright holder should not be determined by analogy with tangible property like land. Rights given should be balanced so as to minimise the harm caused by the monopoly. They should be for a far more limited time. They should reflect the reality of todays market. Geographic restrictions should be outlawed, as should geographic price discrimination. This simply acknowledges the reality of the internet and the resulting single market. Arguably creators should, for their own protection, not be allowed to completely alienate their copyrights or even licence them for extremely long terms.
The maxim that two or more wrongs don't make a right is of course correct. However, it is not realistic to expect that human nature sits easily or at all with allowing all sorts of depredations on the part of, for instance, large publishers, who then hide behind the rigidity of the often draconian laws they have themselves procured, all the time shouting that they have the high moral ground. Whilst it is clearly wrong to pirate a copyrighted work for many reasons, no matter how deplorable the copyright holders conduct may have been, my sympathy is reserved for the actual authors who do not get paid. I have none for the publishers.
Finally, I should add that these laws exist, they are the law, and I don't want to encourage others to break them. We should do what we can, legally, to change them. Because they are very bad laws.
|