Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga
But nobody is saying those breeders couldn't sell the flowers they grow. The issue would be if said breeders would try to prevent other people from growing (and giving away) flowers of their type; that's what's analogous to copyright.
|
Yes, that would be more analagous to copyright. Agreed.
So are you saying they should they not be allowed to do so, at least for some reasonable period of time, in order for them to attempt to recoup the costs of their time, labour and capital and perhaps turn a profit? And if you are suggesting such a thing, why shouldn't they be allowed?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga
The thing is, making a copy of a digital file is incredibly easy and incredibly cheap, whereas making a copy of a flower takes a lot of time and effort. Hence flower growing can still be a profitable business for those who offer to save time and effort to others in exchange for cash, even totally ignoring patents.
|
And here is the problem.
Making the copy of a digital file is incredibly easy and incredibly cheap and therefore what? It should just be allowed to happen? That authors should not be allowed to have any control over their creation for any length of time? That because it is easy and cheap to copy the public therefore has the right to obtain it for free?
On top of that the idea that because it is easy and cheap to copy means it should be given away for free will only encourage more and more people to accept the idea that obtaining a copy free of charge is not only ok but is their inherent "right". Once that stage is reached how many people do you think will even be willing to operate by the iTunes model? That is, a fair price for a quality product? I would argue very very few would be because they have been conditioned to believe it is their right to expect and acquire the digital copy for free.
Cheers,
PKFFW