I want my M.D. to have the most knowledge and access to the best tools. If he or she got those via profit motivation, that's fine with me. People can be motivated by more than one thing at once.
Lost opportunity is a real, actual, bona-fide cost. But I'd agree with you if you argued that the cost is small, per-copier, and that many copiers would never choose to buy the material in the future anyway.
But when the person who found value, and would have been happy to pay, sees others paying nothing, that person will then also pay nothing. That's a real lost opportunity. And worse, it extrapolates out, obviously, to less compensation to artists, inventors, scientists, actors, etc., which leads in my opinion to a less fun life.
What you're talking about here is essentially your personal philosophy. It's a religious position you are taking concerning what you feel is right or wrong. That's got nothing to do with the purpose of IP law. It's not to make things morally right. It's a practical compact to encourage creative constructions which benefit society. Songs, movies, inventions, drugs...
No one is going to spend the time and energy creating those things if they can not then sell them. You could argue that a magical shift to public funding might occur, but somehow I think it might be less efficient.
So it is not the lost profit that is the issue. What people have an issue with is that people who cheat this system basically seek out a special profit for themselves, while depending on everyone else to hold up the compact that keeps the music coming. They seek personal gain at others' loss, and as their numbers increase they risk an overall loss to society that would make life much worse for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
It failed well into the third stage burn, that seems far too late to successfully escape.
No doubt it will be on the appetizer tray at Space-X's holiday party this year.
I want my M.D. to have the most knowledge and access to the best tools. If he or she got those via profit motivation, that's fine with me. People can be motivated by more than one thing at once.
Lost opportunity is a real, actual, bona-fide cost. But I'd agree with you if you argued that the cost is small, per-copier, and that many copiers would never choose to buy the material in the future anyway. But when the person who found value, and would have been happy to pay, sees others paying nothing, that person will then also pay nothing. That's a real lost opportunity. And worse, it extrapolates out, obviously, to less compensation to artists, inventors, scientists, actors, etc., which leads in my opinion to a less fun life.
What you're talking about here is essentially your personal philosophy. It's a religious position you are taking concerning what you feel is right or wrong. That's got nothing to do with the purpose of IP law. It's not to make things morally right. It's a practical compact to encourage creative constructions which benefit society. Songs, movies, inventions, drugs... No one is going to spend the time and energy creating those things if they can not then sell them. You could argue that a magical shift to public funding might occur, but somehow I think it might be less efficient. So it is not the lost profit that is the issue. What people have an issue with is that people who cheat this system basically seek out a special profit for themselves, while depending on everyone else to hold up the compact that keeps the music coming. They seek personal gain at others' loss, and as their numbers increase they risk an overall loss to society that would make life much worse for everyone.