I kept on wondering why the authority gets so uptight about it. I mean if something is created for enjoyment, why not sharing it around? Of course the rich should be paying the creators for the effort they put into producing the things they enjoy. It is not like the poor, such as students and jobless people should not have the right to enjoy things just because some greedy bastards want to make more money.
To compare piracy (for personal use, not for commercial purpose) to stealing is not that appropriate. Stealing is to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force. If person A stole an umbrella from person B, person B would no longer have such umbrella. But with copyright, if person A illegally downloaded a movie, the movie still belongs to the rightful owner. This movie might give $20 worth of enjoyment to person C, but only $5 for person A. So person C might pay $15 and see it in the cinema when the movie comes out. But Person A might wait a couple of months and download a low resolution one from the internet.
One might argue that by allowing people to illegally downloading the movies/music, one effectively reduced the earning, thus diminishing the incentives for the movie producers/musicians from creating new and better music. Really? I mean just look at Youtube, how many people produced free movies so that others can enjoy what they have created? Besides, if something is good enough, people like me would not mind to pay for it. But I see no point in paying for something I am only willing to watch once.
Any thoughts on this?
To compare piracy (for personal use, not for commercial purpose) to stealing is not that appropriate. Stealing is to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force. If person A stole an umbrella from person B, person B would no longer have such umbrella. But with copyright, if person A illegally downloaded a movie, the movie still belongs to the rightful owner. This movie might give $20 worth of enjoyment to person C, but only $5 for person A. So person C might pay $15 and see it in the cinema when the movie comes out. But Person A might wait a couple of months and download a low resolution one from the internet.
One might argue that by allowing people to illegally downloading the movies/music, one effectively reduced the earning, thus diminishing the incentives for the movie producers/musicians from creating new and better music. Really? I mean just look at Youtube, how many people produced free movies so that others can enjoy what they have created? Besides, if something is good enough, people like me would not mind to pay for it. But I see no point in paying for something I am only willing to watch once.
Any thoughts on this?
Comment