|
> claiming that "I should have free and unlimited access to any
> and all digital media because digital media has zero value and
> therefore should be free"
Mh? If you want to build a tight and intuitively acceptable moral case for "should be not free", then you should start with something that isn't free. Which is the content of course. Unlike replication, storage and delivery of "copies", production of content has non-zero cost. Once you conceptually divorce copy from content, you can state that one of them is free and the other one isn't. Once you develop a state of mind in which the previous statement makes sense, it is intuitively obvious why paying the creator makes sense too. Once you start making sense, you can educate others.
Ok, forget semantics. Does this make sense to you:
It came to be that PKFFW spake and said unto the people: "thou shalt not make Copies with thy computer for it is Sin!" And the people LOL-ed.
Then PKFFW spake once more and said: "thou shalt pay the Artist, for he is the source of much joy but he goes hungry!" And many agreed.
> I would think it would be logical to tackle a problem whilst it is still small
And how do you do that? To "educate" people on a problem that is too small to measure -now- You would need to blow it out of reasonable proportions for anyone to listen. And then depend on anyone not to notice you are doing just that.
Alternatively you could do:
1. Get a reality-based assessment how bad the problem is now.
2. Identify forces that are likely to cause the problem to grow worse.
3. Estimate, what damaging effect those forces would have.
4. Then work to neutralize the most-damaging forces.
|