Because in order to protect your "rights", you are penalizing 99.99% of the people for the actions of 0.01%. NOT equitable. Most people ARE honest.
And Jim Baen has settled the issue by actually doing the experiment. "Piracy" in actual fact acts as free advertising.
And the copyright laws today are ludicrous. A patent only lasts for a very limited time compared to copyright. AT MOST, a copyright should be for the author's lifetime (if you want a legacy for your offspring, save and invest the money you make from the copyrighted material, and will THAT to them).
I agree with you. See Post 99.
And Jim Baen has settled the issue by actually doing the experiment. "Piracy" in actual fact acts as free advertising.
Baen's experiment is still ongoing. As I recall, Baen Books is in the business of publishing fiction, principally science fiction. It is not clear that its business model will work for other genres or media. If it does, then I am all for it. In the mean time, I will continue to publish non-fiction the traditional way.
And the copyright laws today are ludicrous. A patent only lasts for a very limited time compared to copyright. AT MOST, a copyright should be for the author's lifetime (if you want a legacy for your offspring, save and invest the money you make from the copyrighted material, and will THAT to them).
Again I agree with you. Patents and copyrights should last for a reasonably short time to encourage innovators to produce. After that, the innovations should be released to the public domain.
Books are different than video. However Books are in libraries. It is obviously not stealing to go to a library.
In a way the internet is a library as well. Thus why is it "stealing" if you access the same thing to read/view on the internet? What is the difference? I see none.
Other material not available in a library is in a different category. But then it is copyright infringement not stealing. I deprive you of nothing by copying a movie on the internet. No property has changed hands. Study after study has shown that people that see/hear material on the internet are far more likely to buy that material than had they only seen advertising. After all no one can possibly buy what they do not know about. Without getting the word out you have no income. There are an increasing number of people never exposed to advertising. They surf the Web and don't watch TV or pay attention to adds on the internet. I am in this category. I watch TV but surf during commercials. Just how are we supposed to know something exist?
If the DRM people get their way they may make more money for a short time but they will kill the goose that laid the golden egg. VCR's have made far more for the TV industry through sales of Video Tapes/DVD/s than they ever began to cost in lost add revenue (which never happened). DRM was forced out of the MP3 market for a large part. Yet music sales went up. I can download movies on the internet but you better believe I pay to see them in a theater if they are worth seeing. But I quit NetFlix two years ago because there are so very few good movies any more. It the game to make bad movies but use DRM to get more money?
DRM flies in the face of everything that makes America Great. Totally enforced only a very few would ever have a chance to sell anything. This crowd would make writing a song and giving it away (to get noticed) illegal. They would force you to pay every time you listened to a song or watched a movie.
Every attempt at DRM has failed and this will as well. I pray it takes Microsoft down with it. Then we might get PC's that actually worked for us instead of Sony, Microsoft, etc. I hate it when Microsoft decides to reboot my computer even though I have done everything I can to deny them this ability.