3 ms·
> My only worry is the current copyright regime is seeming to be ignoring the rather stark changes in overall cost of "copying" digital files. A lot of our curr
by chc 14y ago
> My only worry is the current copyright regime is seeming to be ignoring the rather stark changes in overall cost of "copying" digital files. A lot of our current law rests upon copying itself being a prohibitive process and only possible by a limited few.
This is backwards. If copying were a prohibitive process, we wouldn't need laws to stop people from doing it.
Copyright rests on the opposite premise: That making copies of creative works is relatively easy and cheap. It was originally a response to the printing press making it really easy for anyone to publish bootleg books, which meant that actually paying an author for the rights to his or her work was a sucker's game. Copyright legislation was introduced to prevent people from taking advantage of how easy it was for anyone with a press to copy an author's work.
- mitchty 14y agoRight, but at the same time the ability to copy was restricted. That is what has changed, the cost to copying digital files is almost zero. The cost to copy even with a printing press is not nearly the same. In addition the equipment required can be regulated much easier. That too is almost impossible to do with computers.
- chc 14y agoBut that doesn't make a difference. It's like objecting to gun control legislation by saying, "Actually, guns are even more dangerous than you think." Copyright exists to counteract how easy it is to copy a creative work. The fact that it's even easier now just makes the original rational even stronger if you accept it in the first place.