Have you seen these ads on some DVDs, mixed in with the trailers/previews, that say, "You wouldn't steal a car," "You wouldn't steal a TV," etc.? There's a fundamental difference between stealing physical objects and making copies of movies, music, and software: The individual is not removing the material from the owner who paid. It's more like listening to the radio or taking notes in class than stealing a car. I don't really know how to feel about it, morally. For most of my life, I've taken the mixed position that it's okay to do this sort of copying occasionally, but not with material that I use frequently. A combination of the
U2 incident, the current state of the global economy, and ubuntu (linux) has brought the issue to mind again, and I'm thinking about it at a slightly different angle.
The creators of music, movies, and software, should be compensated for their work, but no one should be required to pay for it. Can't we have it both ways? Consider the internet: google (and all of its projects, like gmail), youtube, facebook, and of course, the software needed to use the internet: firefox, shockwave, flash, quicktime, silverlight, (moonlight), countless firefox add-ons... all FREE, and yet no one loses. The creators are compensated, but no one is required to pay. GIMP is free; Picasa is free, ubuntu is free--an entire OPERATING SYSTEM that rivals, or defeats, windows and mac, depending on the application. i get most of my world news from the internet, for free. It's very confusing, morally. It makes musicians and movie actors/directors/producers seem greedy. Why do they charge me and mozilla doesn't? What's the difference between free and non-free content?
Well, ads provide revenue for some people providing free content, but not everyone. Google sells user behavior data. What else? What am I missing here?
(p.s. perhaps i'm greedy for wanting to own music, movies, and software. radio, television, and internet provide all of these things for free in some fashion. but that's a tangential discussion....)
