3 ms·
> The obvious response is that you stole the author's income, by obtaining a copy of their work without compensating them for it. Given that I (as an European)
by DocTomoe 4y ago
> The obvious response is that you stole the author's income, by obtaining a copy of their work without compensating them for it.
Given that I (as an European) pay extra fees for copyright management companies for each photography-enabled device, each memory device, each scanner and each printer, I should be enabled to make as many copies of any copyright-protected work as I want.
Which is incidentally how it works over here. What gets you in trouble is making works accessible to copiers, not owning copies.
- lxgr 4y agoThese fees are an even worse solution than the current maze of DRMs and walled gardens. Maybe they were an acceptable compromise in a time before e-books and e-readers, but they are neither fair to users, nor do they seem high enough to fairly compensate content creators without their normal revenue channels. If the intention behind it is a kind of public subsidy for content creation: Sure, there are much worse things to spend tax money on. But please do it properly then, i.e. something like a "public Spotify/Netflix" for books and films that correctly attributes view counts, rather than just handing money almost exclusively to already popular/financially stable creators as measured by past sales records.