gregweller said:
Except, Greg, that the library paid for the book, and the contract the book was sold under included the right to let other people read the book. What you propose is for the library to buy one book, then let anyone photocopy it.
To make Napster, et al, work like libraries, anyone who uploads a copy of a song must also upload a certain amount of money. Each time the work is downloaded, the money supply is depleted as it is paid to the artists. When the money is totally gone, the file is deleted. Anyone who wishes to could put in more money, allowing more people to download the song.
Of course, those who get on their high horses about "sharing" tend to jump off the minute that it costs THEM something to "share".
The real issue, though, is respect for the creators. The pro-theft people on this list are, basically, crapping on the people who make the works they're stealing. Technological and legal solutions won't work. What is needed is a cultural shift, to the point where taking work without compensating the creators is viewed in the same way as kicking cripples or pissing in the streets, as something civilized people Just Don't Do.
(Anyone who says, "Well, the fascist corps ripped me off!" -- you are free to never give them another dime. In return, you don't get their output. If it's not good enough to pay for, it's not good enough to steal -- in the real world, people steal stuff because it's worth so much, it's worth risking jail. No one steals crap. The fact you're willing to steal it demonstrates that it is, in fact, worth your money.)
