Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Old Neon
It’s this sort of perverted logic that drives me batty. At one time, if a person couldn’t afford something, and money was tight, they’d save up until they had enough to purchase whatever it was they wanted. You cannot justify taking something just because your purse might be a little light. Can’t afford a book, why not save until you can, or, if possible, stop by your local library?
But I guess it’s ok because those damn publishers are so damned evil, and your selfish desires supersede not only the law, but basic human decency as well.
You make it sound as though you simply have no other choice but to take what you want, and cannot or should not be held accountable because you don’t like the way publishers do business. Lot’s of things, hell, most things are moderately to grossly over-priced, but that doesn’t justify what amounts to a modern version of frontier justice.
|
Whoa, take a step back and read what was written. I didn't use any logic to justify my behavior, I just provided an observation of said behavior relevant to the original question in this thread.
The logic I did present was:
Quote:
|
where legitimate channels do not meet demand at a bearable price, black markets will emerge. Trying to quash those markets without addressing the shortcomings of the official channels only breeds ill will and diverts resources.
|
and
Quote:
|
With books in particular, though, today's torrent will very likely be tomorrow's hardcover. Media companies would be better off ceding filesharing to Fair Use and leveraging it for promotional value.
|
Publishers aren't evil, but they do have to adapt to the new media. It's perfectly laudable to support their stumbling efforts in the transition, and while I'm just starting into ebooks, I have availed myself of several music and video market sites to that end. I have no doubt I'll purchase ebooks, too.
My point is that responding to filesharing on the basis of "OHMYGODITSBADSTEALING!!!" is not useful, and media companies are only now beginning to see that fact. What do you think had a more positive influence on the RIAA's bottom line, prosecuting single moms or actually making their catalogues available online?