That's fine and dandy as part of a free as in beer ethos. When 'information' wants to pad the quarterly earnings statement of a gigantic corporation that exists only by grinding the suffering of fellow humans into a fine marketable paste I am somewhat less sympathetic. Information should be free. To people, for non-commercial use.
Perhaps. However, information won't be produced, if the already tenuous financial positions of authors is removed.
Things should be free, as in speech, not as in beer. Especially in this case. The giants of Silicon Valley could in fact purchase these rights.
Few authors care about people personally enjoying a product through otherwise means. They do care about mass distribution without attribution, without royalty, and without regard.
That's fine and dandy as part of a free as in beer ethos. When 'information' wants to pad the quarterly earnings statement of a gigantic corporation that exists only by grinding the suffering of fellow humans into a fine marketable paste I am somewhat less sympathetic. Information should be free. To people, for non-commercial use.
Perhaps. However, information won't be produced, if the already tenuous financial positions of authors is removed.
Things should be free, as in speech, not as in beer. Especially in this case. The giants of Silicon Valley could in fact purchase these rights.
Few authors care about people personally enjoying a product through otherwise means. They do care about mass distribution without attribution, without royalty, and without regard.
Information isn't copyrightable, at least in the US. Only creative works. But I get what you are saying.