Comment Re:Genius. (Score 2) 413
It can even be argued that a copy is even more valuable than the original, because it's easier to use on whatever device I prefer due to lack of DRM.
Really? So if you delete the digital copy, you actually lose more value than if you destroy the original?
What if you make a hundred digital copies, and then delete them? OH MY GOD, you've just lost, like, thousands of dollars!
Don't be inane. When you refer to the "original" you are really talking about the master studio copy of the performance. _Everything_ else is a copy.
Since you appear to need it spelled out, the value is in the entertainment and enjoyment provided by the copy. I think I can put this in simpler terms.
Two people wish to be entertained for two and a half minutes. They both inexplicably love Sanjaya. Person A buys a track from Google Music. Person B copies the track from person A. They both independently listen to the music and are entertained. They have both received _value_. Person A paid $1 to receive that value. Person B paid nothing. One of them is an entitled little shit. Guess which one?
The only reason your argument *sounds* correct is because you have dumbed down this complex problem way too much.
Please consider the following usage cases - using your above example:
1. If person A wants to listen to Sanjaya twice, i.e. she wants to be entertained for 5 minutes, not 2.5; should she pay more?
2. If person A listens to Sanjaya along with family or friends, should she pay more?
3. If person A plays the song in her restaurant, should she pay more?
4. If person A creates a personal copy of the song and plays the song on 2 different media devices, should she pay more?
5. If person A sells her song to person C and deletes her personal copy, should she pay more?
6. If person A rents her song to someone else (only one person at a time), should she pay more?
7. If person A rents her song to someone else (multiple people at the same time), should she pay more?
8a. If person A decides to do all of the above but with a much lower quality/bitrate copy, does that change anything?
8b. Alternately, if person B copies a low bitrate version of the song, is she still an entitled little shit?
9. If for some reason, person A loses her song or the song gets corrupted or deleted, should she be able to download it again for free?
10. If person B paid 1 cent to person A with the understanding that she will only listen to the song once in the next 24 hours and then will delete it, and honored the agreement, is she still an entitled little shit?
I'm quite sure I haven't covered all possible usage cases - the above are only some naive ones that I can think of. Even so, I personally cannot think of satisfactory answers that sound ethical and economically fair to both the content creator and the content consumer. I suspect that the correct workable answer would be more reasonable than fair, more practical and just, and would lie somewhere in the middle of the two polar stances that people.are taking on this subject.