RE: If Buying is not Owning; Does Piracy Cease to be Theft? In 2000s games started a ...
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
The old way, the way of being a gate keeper, to sell your media for as high as possible, was always a scam.
It has been found, time and time again, that just omitting the locking stuff increases revenue. Less hassle, more money.
But no, the type of mind at the top is that, if they can pirate it, they will pirate it. We must stop it, we must punish it.
People have given away songs for donation, and have gotten more money than they ever have through big record label.
People self publish books, even give away the digital version, and they make more money then if they had a publisher.
The entire idea of "copyright" is wrong, but the executives demand to have the power to tell purchasers what they can and can't do, even after purchase. Evil.
Paulo Coelho is a very big example of piracy working out well for a creator. He has even actively called for people to pirate his book. He has sold over 320 million copies according to the search results.
I consider the individuals who create the content to be the owners of it and it is upto them to decide how they want their work to be distributed (or not distribute at all). I they want to release it under Creative Commons/Unlicense/MIT or something strict, it is upto them. What is oppose is the bait and switch tactics and lies. If a product is sold under the pretext that you "own" what you buy, the seller should stick to their side of the trade. If they break it, I don't see a good reason to respect their "copyrights". If anyone is scamming the very people who are paying them, they are not engaging in free trade.
I consider "pirating" content that are not available for sale as a part of art preservation. If a company stops selling a game and release a remaster/remake, I am going to consider the original work as abandoned property.