Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Certainly, but it doesn't alter the point I was making. You said that you felt that people did not respect the moral rights of an author, but only their legal rights. I believe that the primary motivation for most people, when deciding how to act, is "moral" rather than legal. We obey laws because we think they are "right"; we may choose to ignore a law because we feel it to be "wrong".
|
I really don't think you can generalise in that way.
To take an example. Some people obey the speeding laws because they think its the right thing to do (I'm one of them). A lot of others obey it because they don't want to get points on their license, or a ticket. I've noticed that in areas where its aggressively enforced, compliance is far greater. Drink Drive laws are similar. However here there was also a cultural change caused by education/social pressure.
Other laws have structural effects. I'm sure some people obey the drug laws simply because they make it sufficiently inconvenient to acquire drugs compared to alcohol.
In the case of copyright law, where it has been trivial to violate people have done (mix tapes, photocopying articles). Where it was harder (entire books) they haven't. There seems to be considerable confusion as to whether copying is stealing (attachment to physical object, other information contained) or borrowing (physical object is only a container for information contained within). I suspect borrowing will win out as older people die out.