3 ms·
'Fair'? That seems an invalid concept here. What is 'fairness', assuming a strict copyright system? -- it is a race with the qualifying runner, but where no oth
by hxa7241 14y ago
'Fair'? That seems an invalid concept here. What is 'fairness', assuming a strict copyright system? -- it is a race with the qualifying runner, but where no others are allowed to run! That is a strange notion of fairness.
But 'fairness' is just a diversion: these copyright trade monopolies are supposed to prevent competition (of distribution), that is their point. That is how they increase one kind of revenue and so supposedly increase production.
When non rights-holders are copying/distributing it is competition de facto -- according only to the basic rules of physics. And it can therefore be an important signal: because what is basically physically possible is what the economy should really be aiming for. If people can distribute informational goods themselves better than the authorised channels, those channels are clearly underachieving according to the real baseline measure.
- citricsquid 14y agoFair is when the people that own content control that content. It's not a difficult concept.
- slowpoke 14y agoHow so? I would see it as a lot fairer if we'd all follow a liberal approach: I can't force you to give me things. But neither can you stop me from sharing them. I completely reject the illogical, nonsensical crazy idea that you can own virtual, abstract things. It's impossible by their very definition. Die Gedanken sind frei.
- vibrunazo 14y ago"Your right ends where another's right begins." It's 'fair' for you to have control over your content, as much as it's 'fair' for me to have control over how I can share, remix and improve and the content I bought. When your right conflicts with my right, then I don't it's fair for you to make it illegal for me to improve and share the content created by your grandparent 90 years ago. Short version, the world is not as simply black or white as you'd like to believe.