Copyright was initially introduced so that the author of the invention could benefit from his efforts. The validity of copyright duration is another thing which I dont want to comment about now. Lets examine a simple case: a person has created a software game and has obtained a copyright on that. Now isnt it fair to ask that every one who wants to own the game pay for it. I dont want to consider the issue of multiple copies a single paid user makes, that should be permissible. But the problem here is that the software product is different from the products we are used to owning. If I own a book then many of my family and friends can read it too, but when its in use then that makes it simultaneously unavailabe to others. So in short, it can be sequentially enjoyed. Now a software is not like that, since its not a physical entity it can copied and multiple usage can happen simulateously among people. So in effect the way this product exists makes it vulnerable to get replicated and enjoyed like the same original thing. In simple terms, the price for recreating multiple instances of the product is basically nil unlike other products. This potential and its exploitation by people is what makes it unfair.
And one more thing- just because a person is living like a king dosent give us any right to take some of his belongings justifying, that he, will continue living as king. Are we going to save lives by doing that, then we'll do it.
Ethical questions are questions by humans about humans for humans period. Just because the question is ethical dosent absolve it of being reasonable. It is perfectly understandable that we have civilized(?) to an extent where we can talk of ethics for the whole living world. we however have to keep in mind the trade offs during such discussions. If the things at stake are such as human lives which can be potentially saved or improved then dosent that dictate a more pragmatic and closer look at affairs or do we just go about ranting about how things are changing beyond our imaginations and we dont maintain status quo. While this dosent in anyway suggest diregard for societal concerns, we have to make necessary adjustments in light of new advances.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright was initially introduced so that the author of the invention could benefit from his efforts. The validity of copyright duration is another thing which I dont want to comment about now. Lets examine a simple case: a person has created a software game and has obtained a copyright on that. Now isnt it fair to ask that every one who wants to own the game pay for it. I dont want to consider the issue of multiple copies a single paid user makes, that should be permissible. But the problem here is that the software product is different from the products we are used to owning. If I own a book then many of my family and friends can read it too, but when its in use then that makes it simultaneously unavailabe to others. So in short, it can be sequentially enjoyed. Now a software is not like that, since its not a physical entity it can copied and multiple usage can happen simulateously among people. So in effect the way this product exists makes it vulnerable to get replicated and enjoyed like the same original thing. In simple terms, the price for recreating multiple instances of the product is basically nil unlike other products. This potential and its exploitation by people is what makes it unfair. And one more thing- just because a person is living like a king dosent give us any right to take some of his belongings justifying, that he, will continue living as king. Are we going to save lives by doing that, then we'll do it.
Ethical questions are questions by humans about humans for humans period. Just because the question is ethical dosent absolve it of being reasonable. It is perfectly understandable that we have civilized(?) to an extent where we can talk of ethics for the whole living world. we however have to keep in mind the trade offs during such discussions. If the things at stake are such as human lives which can be potentially saved or improved then dosent that dictate a more pragmatic and closer look at affairs or do we just go about ranting about how things are changing beyond our imaginations and we dont maintain status quo. While this dosent in anyway suggest diregard for societal concerns, we have to make necessary adjustments in light of new advances.