Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
I am highly unlikely to murder someone, does that mean it is not wrong to do so?
And before you suggest I am likening "file sharing" to murder, I am not. I am simply pointing out that something being highly unlikely to happen does not in any way mean that it is not wrong to do that thing.
Again, I am not talking about lost sales, revenue or anything of that nature.
Simple question, in the example where none of the usual arguments for "file sharing" hold true, is it wrong or not to "file share"?
Your point above is simply putting up the argument that it is not wrong because no sale has been lost and is not actually answering my question at all.
What you believe the author should want is not the issue I was asking about.
Again, simple question, in the example where none of the usual arguments for "file sharing" hold true, is it wrong or not to "file share"?
So far you have claimed it is not wrong and then used all the usual arguments in an attempt to show why it is not wrong. I am asking you to set aside those arguments, assume the example is the case in point, all those barriers(high price, old model, authors and consumers not taken care of, DRM free etc etc etc) have been set aside and it is easy, cost effective and convenient to fairly, legally and honestly obtain a copy of the work. Is it wrong to obtain a copy through "file shareing"?(meaning specifically torrenting, web download etc, obtaining a copy from some anonymous person who has shared it with possibly thousands of other people and not borrowing a copy from a mate)
So your final argument seems to be saying that it is not wrong if the author chooses to do things any way that you personally do not like. Is that it? In essesnce things are done your way or you feel you have the moral right to take the work in question without fair recompense?
Cheers,
PKFFW
|
What I'm saying is that although I personally don't share any artist's work when I find them reasonable in their approach (that's a holdout because of the generation in which I was raised), I don't see anything wrong with other people sharing their works. In fact, I see only benefits, born out by the example I posted of Paul Cohelo, and there are plenty more if you would like them listed.
It's not "MY WAY" it's the way that is most respected and most tolerated by the growing audience that is out there. Creative Commons has become the defacto standard of authors and creatives who wish to gain an audience and promote culture. It allows you to craft an agreement with the audience that is fair and balanced (unlike earlier copyright).
The old copyright agreement is basically THIS IS MY WORK = PAY ME TO GAIN ACCESS
The creative commons (at least the one I use is this)
THIS IS MY WORK > PLEASE ENJOY AND SHARE IT FREELY > MAYBE YOU'D LIKE TO PATRONISE ME WITH YOUR READERSHIP OR SOME FORM OF MONETARY RECOMPENSE IN THE FUTURE?