Comment A man caught in The Law (Score 1) 1288
P'sha to the arbitrary laws of men
-Socrates, updated for 2005
You see, the point of having a discussion on the ethical/financial standpoint of copyright laws is to porpose how they ould be more moral/just for all. This includes both the content creators, distributors, and customers. Currently, the market is HEAVILY slanted in favour of the true middlemen (the record and production companies who take creative content, mark it up thousands of percent, and sell it to us poor CD/DVD buying saps). This is unsurprising considering the relative financial, and thus political, standing of the parties involved.
Ergo, if we are to view this mark-up as unethical, we ought not be constrained by what IS "legal". Instead, we should be discussing what OUGHT to be legal. If, as is likely, DRM will be used to facilitate such immorality, it should matter what impact it's rejection will have on "legal" downloading sites (iTunes, Napster-to-go, etc.). In DRM's absence, the above mentioned middlemen may be forced to accept certain digital freedoms. When/if that happens, lawmakers will follow suit. After all, the laws of a land are supposed to reflect the ethics of those residing in that land, aren't they?
-Socrates, updated for 2005
You see, the point of having a discussion on the ethical/financial standpoint of copyright laws is to porpose how they ould be more moral/just for all. This includes both the content creators, distributors, and customers. Currently, the market is HEAVILY slanted in favour of the true middlemen (the record and production companies who take creative content, mark it up thousands of percent, and sell it to us poor CD/DVD buying saps). This is unsurprising considering the relative financial, and thus political, standing of the parties involved.
Ergo, if we are to view this mark-up as unethical, we ought not be constrained by what IS "legal". Instead, we should be discussing what OUGHT to be legal. If, as is likely, DRM will be used to facilitate such immorality, it should matter what impact it's rejection will have on "legal" downloading sites (iTunes, Napster-to-go, etc.). In DRM's absence, the above mentioned middlemen may be forced to accept certain digital freedoms. When/if that happens, lawmakers will follow suit. After all, the laws of a land are supposed to reflect the ethics of those residing in that land, aren't they?
