3 ms·

> Anything less would violate the golden rule. But that doesn't address whether we would all benefit from changing the system. Piracy is good because it promp

by hxa7241 16y ago

> Anything less would violate the golden rule. But that doesn't address whether we would all benefit from changing the system. Piracy is good because it prompts industries to develop non-copyright-dependent means of funding production. Non-copyright means are good because the mechanism of copyright is essentially opposed to the benefit the internet offers. If we want an increased flow of information: wider distribution, lowering of cost -- what the internet brings -- we can't have copyright blocking each copy, restricting distribution, and raising costs -- treating information as if it is still tied to physical objects. If every digital copy is charged the same as the old physical ones, the economic benefit of the internet's innovation is effectively obliterated. No-one (sensible, in general) would want that, so it follows that no-one can want copyright to remain in anything like its current form.

fnid2 16y ago
If every digital copy is charged the same as the old physical ones, the economic benefit of the internet's innovation is effectively obliterated. No way! There is still a huge benefit to the internet. There's no plastic to pollute the environment. You don't have to leave home to get the movie. You can stream it from netflix or watch it on Hulu. Available on the internet, doesn't mean it should be available for free. There are still costs for bandwidth, servers, and all the middlemen who put the pieces together so you can access it that way.
- hxa7241 16y ago
  > There is still a huge benefit to the internet. ... Well, OK, those are the parts that copyright doesn't interfere with. > Available on the internet, doesn't mean it should be available for free. There are still costs for ... Yes, indeed, and these are rather different, individually, systematically, commercially, from what the old laws are fitted for. What transactions there are, the sources of money, and where payment is attached, has to shift around. A copy in itself is now practically free for the individual, and that seems near optimal. Companies have to sell services that are a good deal for people -- that they cannot easily get for themselves.

by hxa7241 16y ago

fnid2 16y ago

If every digital copy is charged the same as the old physical ones, the economic benefit of the internet's innovation is effectively obliterated. No way! There is still a huge benefit to the internet. There's no plastic to pollute the environment. You don't have to leave home to get the movie. You can stream it from netflix or watch it on Hulu. Available on the internet, doesn't mean it should be available for free. There are still costs for bandwidth, servers, and all the middlemen who put the pieces together so you can access it that way.

hxa7241 16y ago
> There is still a huge benefit to the internet. ... Well, OK, those are the parts that copyright doesn't interfere with. > Available on the internet, doesn't mean it should be available for free. There are still costs for ... Yes, indeed, and these are rather different, individually, systematically, commercially, from what the old laws are fitted for. What transactions there are, the sources of money, and where payment is attached, has to shift around. A copy in itself is now practically free for the individual, and that seems near optimal. Companies have to sell services that are a good deal for people -- that they cannot easily get for themselves.