3 ms·

There's obviously a difference between the indefinite ability to copy content and reselling a single used good. I do think that filesharing should be legal, bu

There's obviously a difference between the indefinite ability to copy content and reselling a single used good. I do think that filesharing should be legal, but the arguments you're making are losing ones. I think the real reason behind it relates to the purpose of copyright: http://zacharyalberico.com/day/2012/01/24 http://zacharyalberico.com/day/2012/01/24 Apologies about linking to my own blog - but I wrote it up there so I don't have to rewrite it everywhere.

icebraining 14y ago
There's obviously a difference between the indefinite ability to copy content and reselling a single used good. For physical things, sure, but for digital goods, that's not so clear. A P2P network that automatically lent (copy+delete local) files would require only a very small number of bought copies, if the client could request a copy, play it and then release it immediately.
- TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
  What moral right do creators have that they feel they can restrict music/movie/book/artwork as if the world still follows pure scarcity economics? I also acknowledge that creators should be justly compensated for their works that I intend to use.
  - davidw 14y ago
    > I also acknowledge that creators should be justly compensated for their works that I intend to use. There are a fairly limited number of ways that that can work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#The_free_rider_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#The_free_rider_prob...