Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 29th Apr 2010 16:59 UTC
Permalink for comment 421560
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-10-04
Let me just start by saying that I use Linux and open source exclusively and don't like proprietary software at all.
That said, you are very incorrect.
Why? It indeed costs nearly $0 to make a copy of bits, but those bits would not exist without the money. By your reasoning, all of the cost of a book should go toward printing and physically creating the book, and the author should not get a dime.
By saying "making copies of bits" you make those bits sound less important than they really are. Those bits are the music you listen to, the books you read, and maybe some of the software you use. In many cases, those bits would not exist without the author getting paid.
If you believe that is immoral, fine, morality is specific to each person. But reality isn't. The world would simply be a very different place without copyright.
I think the thing you are missing is that, for example, the e-book is the direct equivalent of a real book, and should be valued as such (minus the printing costs). You are trying to make digital works seem somehow inherently different than physical works, when it is really just a different medium.