May 10, 2015, 12:06 pm
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2015, 07:17 am by connor17. Edited 4 times in total.)
If you don't know who Shostakovich is, you won't buy his string quartets, because you don't know the dude. This is platitudinous.
So, before buying something, you need to know it. And how do you know some music? Listening to it maybe? For free?
In the good old days, people used to listen to the FM radio, and that was ok, but technology evolves, and now people use the internet. The concept is the same though, to make culture available for free.
People get to know things, and then people buy those things, if they want to.
So educated people is a prerequisite for a healthy cultural market, and file sharing is an allied to this aim. Or isn't it?
Copyright holders say that if people can get things for free, they won't buy it. Simple argument from simple minded people?
The same argument was used when the first public libraries started: if people can get the book for free, that will be the end of writers and editors. If the argument is so obviously wrong, why they keep using it?
Digital files can be copied an unlimited number of times, making scarcity an obsolete concept. Is this the real problem for copyright holders? In the end, if something is infinite, his value drops to zero, supply and demand law. DRM someone?
What people get with free access to unlimited digital files is not a free ride, but freedom, and that's the real problem for copyright holders. Because copyright holder don't need educated people, they just need consumers.
Through marketing, copyright holders sell their products: MTV, oscars, top 100 radios, social media, etc. People have been already exposed to their products (and only to their products), they have built a market already, so educated people will only bring less profit.
File sharing is good, neccesary, for making culture available to a huge amount of people.
Copyright holders use marketing to sell shit to the masses.
The war is not between copyright and piracy, it's between freedom (culture) and neoliberalism.
So, before buying something, you need to know it. And how do you know some music? Listening to it maybe? For free?
In the good old days, people used to listen to the FM radio, and that was ok, but technology evolves, and now people use the internet. The concept is the same though, to make culture available for free.
People get to know things, and then people buy those things, if they want to.
So educated people is a prerequisite for a healthy cultural market, and file sharing is an allied to this aim. Or isn't it?
Copyright holders say that if people can get things for free, they won't buy it. Simple argument from simple minded people?
The same argument was used when the first public libraries started: if people can get the book for free, that will be the end of writers and editors. If the argument is so obviously wrong, why they keep using it?
Digital files can be copied an unlimited number of times, making scarcity an obsolete concept. Is this the real problem for copyright holders? In the end, if something is infinite, his value drops to zero, supply and demand law. DRM someone?
What people get with free access to unlimited digital files is not a free ride, but freedom, and that's the real problem for copyright holders. Because copyright holder don't need educated people, they just need consumers.
Through marketing, copyright holders sell their products: MTV, oscars, top 100 radios, social media, etc. People have been already exposed to their products (and only to their products), they have built a market already, so educated people will only bring less profit.
File sharing is good, neccesary, for making culture available to a huge amount of people.
Copyright holders use marketing to sell shit to the masses.
The war is not between copyright and piracy, it's between freedom (culture) and neoliberalism.
![[Image: GXyhoAE.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/GXyhoAE.jpg)
![[Image: 3yPvlwt.gif]](http://i.imgur.com/3yPvlwt.gif)
