That is your opinion, many disagree. Your morals may not be my morals and many reject any notion of information copying being wrong in any way. You're still trying to call information property that can be owned, apparently not realizing that the very concept is being rejected, information is not property and the concept of ownership simply makes no sense.
The very notion of ownership stems from physical scarcity, the concept does not logically transfer to digital information.
This is why this debate is really a religious one. It's your beliefs against mine. You believe digitization relinquishes one's right to future revenue from the creation. I do not.
In a world where your beliefs are supported by the courts, a creator's only means to ensure a revenue stream from their creations is to present them only in controlled physical environments free of digitizers.
I don't think that's a better world than the one where creators can expect revenue by selling their digitized creations.
>In a world where your beliefs are supported by the courts, a creator's only
means to ensure a revenue stream from their creations is to present them only
in controlled physical environments free of digitizers.
Bullcrap. They'd just have to make their money in ways that do not depend on
distribution of non-scarce goods. And they already do.
Musicians, for example, are performers. They have a service to sell. That's
how many make their bucks. There's models like Kickstarter, where you pay
upfront - for the act of creating, not for the eventual distribution (which is
costless). Donations or patronage can be a valid source of income, too.
Your claim that we need to restrict access to a good that is inherently not
scarce (and indeed, not depletable) for artists to make a living at all is a
disingenuous lie and flies in the face of reality.
You're quite simply wrong; content creators have plenty of ways to make money other than distribution. Secondly, the market doesn't owe creators a living and manipulating the market by creating an artificial concept that allows someone to own information is wrong.
If the only way a creator can make money is by using law to create artificial scarcity, then whatever he's creating isn't deserving of pay; if it were, the market would value it without the fake scarcity imposed by law. There was a time when creators were paid to create, rather than for content distribution, we need to return to those times.
You are simply defending the status quote without understanding the critique against it.
But you can charge for access to that information, and unfortunately for those who think they should have the right to free access to any information because it is in digital format are going to be on the wrong side of the law for many years to come I believe...
> But you can charge for access to that information
Only because laws force us to, not because it's the proper market solution to the problem. And it has nothing to do with being digital; if you think it does, you don't understand the complaint. All information should be freely copyable. Whether it's photocopying a book, or burning a copy of a CD, I've deprived no one of anything because there is no natural scarcity of anything that is copyable and thus no justification for ownership claims of pure information. If I see a chair you have that I like, and I build a complete perfect replica of it, I've not taken anything from you, you have no natural claim of damage.
Not really. If IP laws in the US went poof tomorrow, then say goodbye to the multimillion dollar tv shows and movies you think you deserve to have access to for free. People won't spend time creating these things anymore because there isn't any monetary incentive to do so.
Sure you will retort with yes there will be content, but it will be cheap, crap content and say goodbye to the next Harry Potter, Chris Nolans and World of Warcrafts of the world.
Copyright has worked because even due to the ability to easily duplicate content (previously via Xerox), now via the net, content creators see it as a viable way to protect their time spent creating something and to (hopefully) reward their efforts.
Again, this just isn't true. See the movie industry learning that to avoid piracy of new movies from killing profits, they need only release worldwide all at once. People will happily pay money for the experience of the theater; they pirate when it's the only way to get something or when a company is asking too much for something.
Secondly, absent ip, they'd just make more but cheaper movies to target more niche markets; the blockbuster isn't really a great business model to begin with, it just works because law makes an artificial market for it. If the market can't naturally support the blockbuster, then they should go away. A world absent more Michael Bay flicks is a better world anyway.
How is the next 300 million dollar Batman flick going to ever get made if the studios let everyone go see the movie for free? It won't get made.
No it isn't because there is zero demand for those types of movies, in fact there is a huge demand. It is because of copyright that they get the up front funding as the studios can be sure they have protection to make up the cost at release time (if the audiences like the flick enough to go see it).
> How is the next 300 million dollar Batman flick going to ever get made if the studios let everyone go see the movie for free? It won't get made.
What a fucking loss for humanity.
I'm pretty sure JK Rowling would have written Harry Potter (the book) with or without IP laws. I'm pretty sure Notch would have written Minecraft with or without IP laws. I'm pretty sure there were several bloody fantastic games made in the 90s when game piracy was easier and more common.
> How is the next 300 million dollar Batman flick going to ever get made if the studios let everyone go see the movie for free? It won't get made.
IP isn't what makes people pay to see Batman. The loss of IP would not prevent studios from making a killing with Batman at a theater, they'd just have to be a touch more creative in controlling distribution, timing, and release of the official copy. Even without IP, they can contract with the theater to make it a violation of the contract for the theater to copy the film as a condition of getting it. IP isn't what protects the movie industry, it's what protects the home video industry and some of the long tail profits.
Also, making a great movie doesn't require 300 million dollars, and the world did just fine before 300 million dollars movies existed.
The very notion of ownership stems from physical scarcity, the concept does not logically transfer to digital information.