Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna
If they made that file with the expectation that their efforts would be paid for by people who use copies of that file, then you are abusing their right to set the terms under which their work is made public.
|
I'm afraid all those expectations come up against the hard reality of the digital age. If it can be copied it will. If there's enough people who want it, it will be shared. If any creative type thinks they can protect their IP in the digital age from people who really want to share that with each other (not profit from it, SHARE) then they're in for a very rude shock. You might call it abuse. Most of us call it a return to common sense and away from ridiculous limits.
Quote:
Do you also think that a painter has no right to produce limited editions of their work? Or that a photographer should not be allowed to only sell single prints at a price they choose? Or that any band should be allowed to cover any other band's music without paying them? These copies aren't stealing, so by your logic how could the original creators be hurt?
|
All physical objects, all aspects of the physical, all limited and controlled by real-world physicality and scarcity. And all have very little to do with reproduction digitally.
A painter can produce limited editions, why would I think otherwise? But he better expect a digital copy of that limited edition to crop up almost immediately on the internet if there's enough interest.
A photographer can sell single prints, but if someone likes that print, they'll share that too whether its through Tinypic or Flickr. And the photographer can do whatever they like, but they can't expect not to be copied in the digital age.
YES all bands should be allowed to cover ANY song as long as its not for profit.
Your logic on this matter seems seriously flawed, no, more than that, outmoded.