Quote:
Originally Posted by Billjr13
The only business model which has succeeded in taking traffic from the darknet is based on low price, no DRM and high availability. This is not coincidence.
Yeah Entitlement. Give me what I want, make it free or really cheap, make it easy to copy, or I will take it anyway without paying and give it to anybody who asks for it so they wont pay for it too. I'm Entitled to take whats not mine because I want it and you cant stop me.
Sounds like a bunch of petulant children justifying there bad behavior. "I want it I am going to take it and you cant stop me." "If it is on the internet it belongs to everyone, so I dont have to pay for it;" is a poor attitude and if you were the creative one and people were taking your work you wouldn't like it.
|
Look at it this way, copyright is a license from society to the creators to use work that belongs to society for a time (should be brief, but currently isn't) to compensate that creator for creating that work for society. Copyright has always been based on that concept. The work doesn't belong to the creator, upon creation it belongs to society, and for the good of society, it was determined the least evil way of getting that work would be for the society to grant a temporary monopoly license to that work.
Now, we are seeing corporations and some creators trying to abuse that license. We are also seeing terms so long that the creations themselves are getting lost before society gets the license back. So there is a backlash from society, the deal they signed just got turned against them, and as was said, they are forming up to displace the politicians that are allowing this to happen. If corporations and creators continue to abuse society, I believe that the backlash will get much worse, piracy will increase, and political pressure to take back the property of the society will increase, both of which will hurt the big names abusing the license. Although, I think with sane changes, it would help some of the smaller creators.
--Carl