Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Hmmm. Should the law really be based on whether the cost of enforcement exceeds the economic benefit? That strikes me as the wrong way to look at it. Surely the law should exist because it's wrong to download stuff without paying for it, shouldn't it?
|
When the purpose of the law is "provide economic benefit to the creators of content," the cost of enforcing it should be less than (1) those economic benefits and/or (2) the tax revenue gained by those sales.
It's not morally wrong to copy something without paying for it. We all do this when we tell our families a joke we heard at work. If copying were innately immoral and illegal, photocopiers and scanners would be a regulated industry, requiring a proof-of-copyright before using.
Quote:
So we shouldn't prosecute criminals because, as a result of their crimes, they have more disposable income? 
|
No, but we could have much, much less theft if everyone were strip-searched every time they enter or leave a store--at the cost of a lot of time, effort, and annoyed customers. The cost of enforcement must be considered when deciding whether a law is justified.
What gains come from it, and what is lost?
In this case, it seems that the gains are noticeable but small, and the losses are being ignored entirely.