Quote:
Originally Posted by HansTWN
LEGAL abundance is impossible with current technology.
|
Are you unable to acknowledge that due to current technology, abundance exists for digital forms?
Do you not recognize by definition, that it is the legality applied to this specific economic situation being discussed that creates the condition for artificial scarcity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansTWN
Free copying hurts the creators and their agents, and thus society.
|
How exactly does "Free copying hurts the creators and their agents, and thus society"?
Your position in post
288 was that infringement ("Piracy") is a good method for promoting unknown/obscure (unread/unheard) authors/artists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansTWN
Therefore I think calling it artificial abundance is correct. Just because something is possible doesn't make it right.
|
Perhaps you are then acknowledging that abundance exists. Economically, I'm not sure it matters how that state is reached. The technology that makes it possible is certainly morally ambivalent. Whether or not there is right/wrong would be an attempt to constrain the state of abundance (aka artificial scarcity).
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansTWN
Again, I see nothing wrong with coercion by the state when the cause is just and action as to be taken to avoid people's rights being trampled on. What should be wrong with coercion to prevent crime? It should be hoped that it isn't necessary, but that's what law enforcement is for.
|
And yet infringement in the context that is being discussed here (non-commercial infringement) is not a crime. Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but to further clarify your position, by people, you mean authors, and by rights you mean copyright, an artificial (not natural) monopoly right temporarily granted by a government.
By omission, do you then see something wrong with trade group coercion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansTWN
Sharing always sounds great. The question is, why share what belongs to others, how can that be right?
|
Except according to you it is right (good) when it is works of an unknown/obscure (unread/unheard) authors/artists.
I think you still struggle with the concept of abundance that exists in the economic context to which I refer because it seems your positions are framed in the context of scarcity. Perhaps this will help:
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.
—George Bernard Shaw
Apples - Scarce
Ideas - Abundant
Paper, Glue, Leather - Scarce
0101 0011 0100 1111 0101 0011 - Abundant
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansTWN
They have not agreed to let you share it. And few of us here see anything wrong if you break the DRM
|
Breaking DRM is to remove an enabling component of artificial scarcity in the digital context of abundance. In this context you're okay with violating the author/publisher's rights/intent here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansTWN
and do with the ebook you paid for exactly what you had done with a pbook. Share the book and do not keep the original.
|
It seems that you are still ignoring the state of abundance and limited by the context of scarcity, but let's work with this. Are you suggesting that it should be permissible for ebooks to be shared as long as the originating copy is deleted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansTWN
Actually you are even allowed to hand out 4-6 copies, legally.
|
Well, this is certainly an expansion on what could be done with a pbook. Are you now suggesting that it is "legally" possible to "produce" 6x the quantity of works paid for? Is the original deleted? Are they handed out one at a time?
Handing out a specific number of copies whatever the number seems to me a de facto recognition of abundance and selecting a finite number would be again, a means to artificially create scarcity.