Hacker News Reader

"If I buy a book and read it, and then give you the book to read, I have broken no laws. Why is that not true for all media?" - Michael Moore

View on HN

Obviously, because you didn't 'give you the book', you made an (illegal) copy and kept the book too.

so will you be happy if I overwrite the original file with zeroes 7 times?

Not the issue. Its different to give a book away, versus copying and giving an unlimited copy to someone. You retain the right to own the original, regardless of whether you burn it, lose it, put it in your library. This is not rocket science.

you don't prohibit a person who loaned a book from you to photocopy or take notes from it, do you?

Yes, a gift implies that you lose the instance you owned. I see that as a problem. But what if it were solved? If someone could duplicate your meal, or your master paintings, or any good you own, how could you deny her without being immoral? How would you justify exclusivity?

It happens we do have a True Duplicator: the internet. It only works on digital goods, but it already matters a lot. The lack of exclusivity makes anyone lucky enough to be connected wealthier, at very little cost. Again, how can we justify the exclusivity?

My conclusion is that the illegality of the copies only proves the immorality of the law. We ought to find better solutions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com