David Bravo, a colleague, and argues on his blog to justify piracy:
"What would if it were not so easy to get water? Probably buy it from bottled mineral and from the point of view Fontvella for them as if they steal every time you open the tap.
What would you do if you could not burn the movie to pitch today in Telecinco in your old home video? I really do not know. Just buy it. Just no. But I do not have to argue that they are not imagining worlds in which we live. Today you can record, technology has made possible and the business of music is revolutionary with it.
When the tape appeared the owners of the theaters where it was exhibited live music could say "but what would you do if the tape recorder did not exist? Probably would come to hear the music in my theater rather than hear it from your house. "We do not know and it is best to forget the statistics on how many would go to the theater and those who do not. What we do know for sure is that the tape exists and about this reality should be discussed. "
This is to keep the personal and even their own attorneys in their daily practice, deontologically not correct. You can not compare an exchange of goods or services with a mere ownership, but not cause a real detriment to the assets of any third party. Well, in a case being redeemed or utility property on the other (running water, video and tape for money), it is understood the role of trade and social cooperation. With so if you stop buying a product to move to its equivalent, this function is maintained. However, in the course of the acquisition without compensation, a "consumer" is used and that have allowed so that the appliance is essential in traffic will, so to speak, of emptiness. It added that even though many beneficiaries and only a few operated by the sponging, the cooperative principle is broken, refuses to root. For the same reason, although we were all thieves, we would all be antisocial.
Imagine for a moment, by magic, We were given universally ignore the principle of scarcity. The ability to copy, say, cars and sell the copy without letting go of that and we inevitably sink the automotive industry. Also would render superfluous, it is said. But what about the future? At the end all the cars remain the same models for fifty years and are not going to let technological progress and thus improving the quality of life of consumers.
About all this, think that mere ideas, not hardware or virtual, can not be sold as a product, they are not consumable and not respect the principle of scarcity. They can, Instead, capitalize, as already explained. But the copyleft rejected "a priori" all possibilities: either the sale of the idea turned into paper as previous capitalization, claiming that is a non-capitalized, social, of all (of course, when I'm refuting David Bravo, is David Bravo refutes itself, because we share the social good that I have generated in the form of letters?). In short, the proposed copyleft winter ideas.
0 comments:
Post a Comment