3 ms·
The word "copying" works if it's not illegal, but it is. You have to say "illegal copying" for accuracy. Let's look at it from another angle. Let's say someo
by palish 19y ago
The word "copying" works if it's not illegal, but it is. You have to say "illegal copying" for accuracy.
Let's look at it from another angle. Let's say someone paints a nice painting of a hand scrunching up a piece of cloth. If you think about it, an original painting is a form of artificial DRM. It's artificially more valuable than a copy, which causes implicit DRM.
But let's say it wasn't. For whatever reason, people just didn't feel like the originals were worth paying for. What do the artists do who want to make a living that way, if they're not good at other skills yet? Maybe they've devoted their whole life to painting. It puts a lot of creative people out of business for no good reason. It's not because their work isn't valuable, it's just because people can copy it.
Do you think they should be protected?
- pg 19y agoSo we agree that copying isn't stealing because stealing involves an actual loss for the victim, right? It's fine with me if people want to use the phrase "illegal copying," but they should understand that they're on swampy semanic ground, because the meaning of "illegal" fluctuates depending what laws the music and movie industries have most recently bribed their pet congressmen to pass. How to encourage young artists is a totally separate question. However, I will say (having been one) that most social-engineering type approaches go badly wrong.
- brlewis 19y agoThe word is "infringement."
- far33d 19y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_M... A little post-modernist theory, just to add fuel to the fire. People have been struggling with the issues surrounding cheap and easy reproduction since the 30s - but art has survived. It just changes.