3 ms·
>like we have to do with every other product? That's not a very progressive spirit. It might seem unfair, but technology has changed the rules of the game. The
by jopt 14y ago
>like we have to do with every other product?
That's not a very progressive spirit. It might seem unfair, but technology has changed the rules of the game. The consumption of many goods has become non-rivalrous.
Whereas taking goods off shelves without paying is covered by other laws, copyright is about forbidding you from sharing what you bought with others who didn't buy it. That's much more debatable.
Reducing this issue to "let's do what we do with every other product" would undo some of the achievements of the technology and hold us back. Copyright has to stand on its own, it can't be justified by analogy to rivalrous goods.
- edanm 14y agoYou make good points. The problem is, you're ignoring history by thinking that technology has changed anything. There is nothing new about copyrights, patents, etc. These systems have been in place for centuries, and the debates about their value have been going on for centuries (and apparently, the pro-copyright faction are winning). Technology hasen't changed anything except to make the problem "bigger". You're right when you say: "copyright is about forbidding you from sharing what you bought with others who didn't buy it. That's much more debatable." But most people who talk about these issues don't realize that all of these things have been debated for a long time. Most people don't add anything new to the discussion, and are woefully ignorant of the thought that's already been put in. Sources: Read, for example, Eric Flint's writing on the subject http://www.ericflint.net/index.php/2011/09/26/salvos-against-big-brother/ http://www.ericflint.net/index.php/2011/09/26/salvos-against...
- jopt 14y ago> you're ignoring history by thinking that technology has changed anything With your line of argument, what changes can happen? What is new?
- edanm 14y agoLots of changes can happen. They just haven't here, in this case. Did you read the article? The arguments they had during the 1800s basically foresee all of the issues people talk about regarding copyright, including foreseeing piracy.
- jopt 14y agoOkay, lots of changes. One example? Can you show me a paradigm shift where the rules actually needed to be updated, and explain what is different from this case?
- edanm 14y agoYes, I can. But I'm not going to go down this road with you - we'll be stuck all day fighting over definitions of what is an "actual" paradigm shift and where rules "really were" updated. Instead, feel free to make your point. I pointed to an article and made a very specific case - the issues people talk about today, and think are unique to our time because of technology, are not unique, and have been discussed before our time. As proof, I linked to an article which has excerpts from talks given during the 1800's. I'm still unsure what case you're trying to make, and whether you agree or not that my statements were correct.