3 ms·

digital copying has never existed before, it's a new ability due to computer and information technology. up to the internet any digital (or analog) copies need

digital copying has never existed before, it's a new ability due to computer and information technology. up to the internet any digital (or analog) copies needed to be transfered along with a physical (thus exclusive) object. of course none of the copyright justifications are based on the cost of copying becuase it had never been so easy to do. I can't imagine the legal justification of anything being based on technological possibilites from future times. in any case I think about it "from the other direction" (so to say). I start from the fact that digital copying is so increadiby cheap/easy that we should take advantange of this technological ability instead of trying to diminish it because of "the market's business interests"

tzs 7y ago
But one of the major copyright justifications is in fact based on the cost of copying. Specifically, that if copying is cheap and quick, then copiers will be able to get their copies into circulation before the creator can recoup their costs of creation. Creators have higher expenses than mere copiers, and competition among copiers should drive the cost of a copy down to near the marginal cost of copying. Technological changes that lower the cost of copying and make it faster to copy make the case stronger, not weaker, for copyright under that justification. > in any case I think about it "from the other direction" (so to say). I start from the fact that digital copying is so increadiby cheap/easy that we should take advantange of this technological ability instead of trying to diminish it because of "the market's business interests" Copyright under the cost of copying type of justification is based on artificially giving things like music recording the same attributes as physical goods, so that the free market can determine what new works should be produced. This trade-off with this is that this does mean that the price of a recording to the consumer is higher than it should be (which is close to the marginal cost of making a copy). There's no reason we have to try to make the free market handle deciding what gets produced. By giving that up, we can make the cost to consumers near zero like you want, but we then do have to come up with a different way to decide what gets produced and how that is paid for.

tzs 7y ago

But one of the major copyright justifications is in fact based on the cost of copying. Specifically, that if copying is cheap and quick, then copiers will be able to get their copies into circulation before the creator can recoup their costs of creation. Creators have higher expenses than mere copiers, and competition among copiers should drive the cost of a copy down to near the marginal cost of copying. Technological changes that lower the cost of copying and make it faster to copy make the case stronger, not weaker, for copyright under that justification. > in any case I think about it "from the other direction" (so to say). I start from the fact that digital copying is so increadiby cheap/easy that we should take advantange of this technological ability instead of trying to diminish it because of "the market's business interests" Copyright under the cost of copying type of justification is based on artificially giving things like music recording the same attributes as physical goods, so that the free market can determine what new works should be produced. This trade-off with this is that this does mean that the price of a recording to the consumer is higher than it should be (which is close to the marginal cost of making a copy). There's no reason we have to try to make the free market handle deciding what gets produced. By giving that up, we can make the cost to consumers near zero like you want, but we then do have to come up with a different way to decide what gets produced and how that is paid for.