Quote:
Originally Posted by taosaur
I can't speak for Jaime Astorga, but you two are making quite a jump here. When JA says "I support piracy in general," I assume he's talking about so-called piracy as it exists: present means of file-sharing at more or less present volumes, not a fictional world in which file-sharing is the only means by which anything gets distributed.
As things are, the author gets paid (by the non-file-sharers only) AND their works are more widely distributed (without their permission or approval), (possibly, arguably) increasing the odds that they get paid more, and more often, down the road. [SNIP, but more below]
|
I edited some parenthesized, bold-faced clarifications into your statement above. My point is that any author who wants to give away their work via a file-sharing route is free to do so. And sharing
those files isn't piracy at all -- it's entirely legitimate! My issue is with the NON-legit content, and the question of who gets to choose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by taosaur
The extent to which file-sharing does impact sales is precisely the extent to which publishers (of any media) are pressured to reform their business models and distribution schemes, and creators are pressured to find publishers who can handle the new realities.
|
Actually, this just isn't correct. The part of the file-sharing that brings pressure to bear on publishers and their business models is exactly and only the degree to which they lose sales (whatever those lost sales may be -- there's plenty of argument about that question, and I don't intend to take it on here). "[Pressuring publishers] to reform their business models and distribution schemes, and [pressuring] creators [...] to find publishers who can handle the new realities" would happen just as well in economic terms if all the file-sharers simply
refused to purchase or consume any content not available via their preferred business model. That's engaging in a boycott. It's well known and understood, and clearly an ethical approach to the issue.
"File-sharing" and consuming content that is not legitimately acquired, although it does have an economic impact similar to a boycott, gives up the moral pressure that a boycott brings. What happens instead is that file-sharers just look like a bunch of folks who want the content for free and prefer to just "steal" it. So If your true goal is to pressure content producers and their publishers, do it the ethical way. Boycott them, and tell them all about it. And if your true goal is to get the content for more-or-less free, do the file sharing thing.
But don't fool yourselves -- sharing files while using the language of a boycott just makes you look like you're attempting to justify taking content without permission or compensation. It shoots your moral argument in the foot (or maybe in the heart)!
Xenophon