4 ms·
> I don't see why that's necessarily so. Then tell me how you stop piracy without reducing the openness of the internet.
by marknutter 13y ago
> I don't see why that's necessarily so.
Then tell me how you stop piracy without reducing the openness of the internet.
- res0nat0r 13y agoJust because something can't be 100% prevented doesn't mean there should never be any efforts to stem it's activity.
- leephillips 13y agoYou're going from "destroy" to "reducing the openness"? I don't claim to have a solution that doesn't somehow "reduce the openness", or, in other words, apply some rules or mechanisms that are not in place now. I'm not interested in destroying or even significantly hampering the internet. But I also don't want the internet to destroy the ability of people to make a living from their creative work.
- marknutter 13y agoReducing the openness of the internet is synonymous with destroying it. To stop piracy altogether, I believe the value of the internet would need to be completely destroyed, yes. > I'm not interested in destroying or even significantly hampering the internet. But I also don't want the internet to destroy the ability of people to make a living from their creative work. You do realize that it has always been very difficult for artists to make a living off their work. So difficult, in fact, that the vast majority do their art in their spare time and work other jobs to stay afloat, and that has been the case long before piracy existed. I would argue that with the advent of the internet, and yes, file sharing (illegal or otherwise) has actually made it possible for more people to make a living off their art than could before these systems were in place. What you seem to be in favor of is protecting a very small number of people - namely signed, popular artists - while hurting the majority of other artists, people who share art, and the internet itself.