Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
That is all well and good but what you are basically saying is that if the author chooses to do business in a way that is different to how you choose to do it then you believe you have the moral right to circumvent giving him/her fair recompense.
Cheers,
PKFFW
|
You're putting words into my mouth with that. And it's not about "business" it's about culture in the first instance. A culture freed from ridiculous copyright that stifles innovation and benefits only the corporations, not the creatives. What I'm saying, and I feel like I'm repeating myself here, is that I have no qualms about others sharing these works because I see the benefits of such sharing (as I've pointed out ad infinitum) both in cultural terms and monetary terms. For me there is no downside to this sharing.
These authors can choose to ignore the way the world is moving, but it's to their own detriment. They're part of an old system that is on shaky ground, a system that no matter how much legislation, how much enforcement you place upon it, is not sustainable in the face of the digital era. Creative Commons addresses that imbalance and levels the creator/audience relationship.
If you really, truly cared about the author's getting fair recompense your annoyance wouldn't be targeted toward file-sharers and instead go toward the mega-corp publishing houses that pay their authors miniscule advances and terribly low percentages on the sales thereafter. If you want to talk about morals, then maybe we should talk about the morals of the companies who treat their authors as nothing more than chattel?