Free Distribution
This article pissed me off. Not only does it not work, it also does not make sense. The argument is that because we cannot control people from stealing, we should not try? And I guess going along with that is the idea that it is not really stealing at all. Never mind that the article ignores the difference between all of these creative works and those other productive works is that they are not material objects. Or that people being paid by the hour depend on consumers making purchases later on (as in people making chairs are only getting paid because consumers are buying chairs).
Let's not kid ourselves. Just because many people are doing something, does not mean it is the right thing to do. If everyone stole, stealing would still be bad.
Also, those people making money off of the stock market are not just parasites, but are people who are making sure some of these companies exist and can create new products. The stock market does not exist to make rich people richer, but to allow private individuals to invest in businesses. Investing is indirectly productive, not directly parasitic.
I say this not from my high horse imagining that I am somehow better than this person, because I am not. I have a stolen, I have file shared. What I am not doing though is pretending that what I did was great and was bringing about a new revolution in the way business is done. And even if the conclusions of the article were correct and copyright is dead (which they are not and it is not), the article is still basically telling you that it is morally justified to steal things as long as they are creative works. It completely ignores the legality of the act and makes a dubious moral claim on unstable economic grounds for why it is ok that this person has stolen and other people stolen. That is the definition of shameless and that is why I am pissed off.
