|
|
Posted by anthonyberet on 09/15/05 23:37
Karrde wrote:
> "Don M." <newsreader@nospam4fineartsnospam.com> wrote in message
> news:8fWdneIQFtofWrreRVnyig@giganews.com...
>
>
>>>If something is the "moral equivalent" to stealing, why would it not BE
>>>stealing?
>>
>>
>>You may be right. Greed is the moral equivalent to stealing, so perhaps
>>the entertainment
>>industry IS stealing.
>
>
> Justification for crappy behavior. Do you think it's okay to steal a pair
> of shoes because you think Nike charges more than YOU decide they should?
If I could get a pair without depriving Nike of their pair, then sure, I
wouldn't have a problem with that - that still wouldn't be stealing though.
<snip>
> What concerns me in this debate is the moral. Copyright
> infringement IS morally wrong.
Now that I can't agree with - to me copyright itself is morally wrong.
I am not a Christian, but even I would think it a shame if the bible no
longer existed, simply because no-one had ever been allowed to make
copies of it, for just a small example.
Copyright is a modern concept - it is simply an economic ploy to favour
a minority of the population - the intellectual property-owners.
When it becomes possible to reproduce a product more cheaply, that
saving should at least in part be passed on to the consumer.
Would you like it if cars were still priced as though they were
individually handbuilt? - Why are intellectual products different?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|