NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4915189" data-attributes="member: 40961">Well, the question in this particular instance is really who gets to decide what's best promoting the progress of the useful arts, which in this case, means best facilitating the creation and distribution of books. There are really only two positions on this that make sense. 1. Its best to use the present copyright system, and to punish illegal file sharing, because the progress of the useful arts is best promoted by making the useful arts profitable so that people will engage in them more often.  Publishers have a profit motive to encourage them to best understand how and when they profit, and to make decisions about licensing, open products, and copyright enforcement. 2. The progress of the useful arts requires not only that the useful arts be created, but also that they be distributed as widely as possible.  Copyright helps incentivize creation, but it doesn't incentivize distribution.  A degree of violation of copyright (probably an expanded conception of fair use, possibly a general tolerance of low level piracy) should be accepted in order to better spread the useful arts once they've been created.  This view is generally held by people who also believe that free rider effects (ie, a decrease in profitability) will not be so strong as to overwhelm the distribution effects granted by a more lax copyright system. Option 3, the one I see around here every so often, is probably dumb.  Option 3 goes like this: 3. Its best for the progress of the useful arts if game creators get paid, but they're idiots who don't know how to make money.  For a variety of reasons yhey can make more money if they let me and/or people like me download their materials without consequence.  They just don't realize the many benefits of releasing open copies of their work.   This point of view usually relies on the idea that professional publishers are too blinded by tradition and a lack of understanding of the internet economy to recognize truths about modern marketing.  It also relies on an unstated assumption that consumers who engage in piracy are best able to evaluate the benefits of open products to the companies from which they pirate. Point of view number 3 is pretty much ridiculous- it tries to have its cake and eat it too by arguing that profitability is somehow aided by following the opinions of those who have the most incentive to ignore profitability in favor of embracing free riding.  This is unlikely.</blockquote>

Verification