I find it interesting that the book so cavalierly dismisses the whole idea of copyright. Several times it talks about the music industry dilemma as though it is an inherent, human right to be able to copy and use something anyway you want. I guess I believe in people's right to earn a living through what they create. But if Napster is really "right" (which the authors suggest) and it's OK to download and share music for free, then artists and recording studios can't make money producing that music. They would actually lose money because it costs money to make the recording.
The "economy" the authors keep promoting doesn't seem like an "economy" at all. Everything is free. The book mentions the author who writes books and posts them on the internet -- never sells them. So ... how does that guy pay his bills? The book also mentions the company that downloaded copyrighted material and sold it for a profit. Legally, that's stealing, not collaborating. The authors' collaorative economy would seem to create a lot of broke people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think their idea of dismissing copyright is not about them believing that it is human right to copy something anyway you want. What they are saying is "Look, yeah it might be the greatest filthiest sin ever to use copyrighted material, but that doesn't matter anymore, because people are going to do it anyway. So instead of whining about piracy, deal with it!" The idea is that if I create anything (music, book, etc.) I will rot my entire life asking each person who uses it to pay for it so I can pay my bills. I am better off finding a outside-the-box way to make sure my bills are paid. Example: A music band focusing their time and efforts on playing at concerts, instead of going door-to-door asking people if they legally bought the band's songs or downloaded them. This doesn't necessarilly mean that this specific band is pro-piracy
Post a Comment