I am glad to hear it.
My comment was made as a dispassionate observer remarking on the reason that the market is what it is, and why the producers and distributors of copyrighted material will deserve to fail.
All producers and marketers of copyrighted material?
I ask because I write books. My books are published under copyright. Are you saying that I automatically deserve to fail because I do not give away my work free to anyone who wants it?
And why that is a Good Thing.
I keep hearing the same assertion (1 wouln't call it an argument) from people who apparently think it should be their right to enjoy what I produce without paying me for it. They never can explain why I should consider this a Good Thing. Can you?
I am with you on this Logophile.
I am a firm believer that there should be some kind of DRM in place. People deserve to get paid for what they do, writing, music, etc.
Even Michael Moore and Barbara Streisand, two people I despise. But they are entitled to get compensated for what they create, even if it is a Steaming Pantload.
I think DRM is still in its infancy. They will someday find a less onerous way. If we knew what that would be, we would already have it, of course...:)
I ask because I write books. My books are published under copyright.
I produce copyrighted material too, across a number of media channels, one of which is writing. I'd make a wager that you or someone in your family has seen (or possibly owns) some of my work. I'm of the opinion that one must publish or perish, to borrow a phrase.
Are you saying that I automatically deserve to fail because I do not give away my work free to anyone who wants it?
No, not automatically fail. Seemingly you are smart enough to be attuned to the market and willing to adjust your products to suit the market. But you seem to be under the impression that you have the same rights as the record companies, the mainstream news outlets or the film and video production companies in regard to copyright issues. I'd suggest you look up the DMCA, or the 'Sonny Bono Act' to see what a few well placed millions will buy these days.
I'd also suggest that you read Thomas Jeffersons thoughts on protecting intellectual property, and why he thought that it should be drastically limited.
For even more insight, I'd direct you to Tom Bethell's excellent book, "The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages".
Finally, I'd offer the observation (again) that the rise of Napster, file sharing, etc. is the unintended- and natural- consequence of a perversion of market efficiency by greedy producers of IP who are now enjoying their just desserts. And that that is undeniably a Good Thing.
Downloading is NOT stealing, it is copyright infringement. It is NOT the same thing, no matter how many times people say so.
If I went to a book store and removed a copy of the book without paying - THAT would be stealing. I would have taken the actual physical item from the store.
Downloading is still wrong, but it is NOT theft.
Because in order to protect your "rights", you are penalizing 99.99% of the people for the actions of 0.01%. NOT equitable. Most people ARE honest.
And Jim Baen has settled the issue by actually doing the experiment. "Piracy" in actual fact acts as free advertising.
And the copyright laws today are ludicrous. A patent only lasts for a very limited time compared to copyright. AT MOST, a copyright should be for the author's lifetime (if you want a legacy for your offspring, save and invest the money you make from the copyrighted material, and will THAT to them).