![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Lawrence Lessig has written an article on copyright and how it should be used that I wish more businesses would read. It is exactly the line defined in this article that I use in my feeling of whether a use is 'moral' or not. And ultimately, if businesses were smart, they would not pursue the "copyright violations" that are to their benefit.
I had a conversation with a friend recently, actually, about that sort of thing. It was a very awkward conversation because he had, it transpired, bought a copy of a Windows version and installed it - permanently - on two computers. And that, to my eyes, is unalloyed theft, and utterly wrong. I'm sorry, but not liking Microsoft, thinking that they have enough money, or thinking they enforce their legal rights too much are none of them cause for stealing.
On the other hand, I have friends who swap mp3 files now and then. And to the best of my knowledge, they do in a way that I believe is a technical violation of the law - but not a moral one. And that is, they get it, they listen to it, and they then either delete it or acquire a legal copy. It saves shipping the original (if there was an original, as some of the songs are bought in digital format) across the country, after all. It's true that, for a period of time, they both have copies from the same legal source, and that is illegal - but not to the detriment of the companies involved.
Yay for someone writing an article to that effect. I understand some of why the recording industry is so upset (it is so very easy for thieves to acquire for free content they could and should buy if they wanted it, and keep it), but I think they're misisng the fact that a great many people would be willing to use it within moral bounds if not legal ones - and that that use would be to their benefit, assuming they don't shut it down and shoot themselves in the foot even more.
I had a conversation with a friend recently, actually, about that sort of thing. It was a very awkward conversation because he had, it transpired, bought a copy of a Windows version and installed it - permanently - on two computers. And that, to my eyes, is unalloyed theft, and utterly wrong. I'm sorry, but not liking Microsoft, thinking that they have enough money, or thinking they enforce their legal rights too much are none of them cause for stealing.
On the other hand, I have friends who swap mp3 files now and then. And to the best of my knowledge, they do in a way that I believe is a technical violation of the law - but not a moral one. And that is, they get it, they listen to it, and they then either delete it or acquire a legal copy. It saves shipping the original (if there was an original, as some of the songs are bought in digital format) across the country, after all. It's true that, for a period of time, they both have copies from the same legal source, and that is illegal - but not to the detriment of the companies involved.
Yay for someone writing an article to that effect. I understand some of why the recording industry is so upset (it is so very easy for thieves to acquire for free content they could and should buy if they wanted it, and keep it), but I think they're misisng the fact that a great many people would be willing to use it within moral bounds if not legal ones - and that that use would be to their benefit, assuming they don't shut it down and shoot themselves in the foot even more.
no subject
If you want to support an artist you like, go to one of their concerts.