I don't disagree that copyright infringement is bad for those in our business who rely on sales of software or media licenses. And sure there are negative residuals like trickle down economics of the media and software publishers. But it is not cut and dried/black and white. What about fair use? What about abandonware? The law is what it is only now. We (as a society) change the law as we use it. The new round of IP laws, such as the DMCA, are new and the full effects not yet known.
Arguing about this is good because it fosters thinking and may prompt people to actually DO something to improve our current situation.
One person arguing the legality. Another, the morality. A third steps in with semantics. Since they all use the same words they think hey are talking about the same thing. But they are not. If you replaced the words they used with the words they mean they'd sound like a pack of hyenas.
To take it one step further the problem is that everyone keeps talking around the fact that the entire argument is centered on "money" not "piracy". Before the internet and before personal computers artists had mechanical control of who had access to their products. That just isn't true anymore and what it means is that artists need to find some new business models. Once they do that the whole issue is going to go away. And that's a good thing, because I've been debating it since the internet was born and that's more than 15 years and I'm getting tired of going round and round and round on the same old arguments. Time to move on.
Exactly. I always get frustrated that gets left out of the debate. The issue is not money. The issue is control. Control is ownership (or a close cousin).
That's why internet music taxes & whatnot are ridiculous. That doesn't restore ownership. Just money.
Comments
I don't disagree that copyright infringement is bad for those in our business who rely on sales of software or media licenses. And sure there are negative residuals like trickle down economics of the media and software publishers. But it is not cut and dried/black and white. What about fair use? What about abandonware? The law is what it is only now. We (as a society) change the law as we use it. The new round of IP laws, such as the DMCA, are new and the full effects not yet known.
Arguing about this is good because it fosters thinking and may prompt people to actually DO something to improve our current situation.
I think the problem was with bad arguing.
One person arguing the legality. Another, the morality. A third steps in with semantics. Since they all use the same words they think hey are talking about the same thing. But they are not. If you replaced the words they used with the words they mean they'd sound like a pack of hyenas.
Welcome to humanity.
nice to meet you
Likewise.
To take it one step further the problem is that everyone keeps talking around the fact that the entire argument is centered on "money" not "piracy". Before the internet and before personal computers artists had mechanical control of who had access to their products. That just isn't true anymore and what it means is that artists need to find some new business models. Once they do that the whole issue is going to go away. And that's a good thing, because I've been debating it since the internet was born and that's more than 15 years and I'm getting tired of going round and round and round on the same old arguments. Time to move on.
Exactly. I always get frustrated that gets left out of the debate. The issue is not money. The issue is control. Control is ownership (or a close cousin).
That's why internet music taxes & whatnot are ridiculous. That doesn't restore ownership. Just money.