3 ms·
That's just like a really inefficient way of achieving the same goal (ie. getting the people who want it, to pay for it). People have their priorities all wron
by Tycho 15y ago
That's just like a really inefficient way of achieving the same goal (ie. getting the people who want it, to pay for it).
People have their priorities all wrong. You can get brilliant art/music/whatever for negligable prices. Or at least as much of it as is healthy to consume.
Removing copyright places a draconian burden on creativity, while only providing a slight real gain in accessability.
- hxa7241 15y agoYou imply the current way is more efficient, but how so? The basic structure of copyright-based business is this: the creator expends effort up front, then hopes buyers will pay later. The information flow, or rather lack of it, introduces a large risk of producing what is not wanted. Also the copy restrictions necessarily raise prices far above the real marginal costs of near zero. That means there is a large potential value the public is prevented from getting. Such a structure consumes a scarce resource -- creative effort -- wastefully, and restricts an abundant resource -- copyability of information -- needlessly. That seems very much the opposite of economically efficient.