Lu sur le blog de Harold (citation tirée d’un article du New York Times):
Economists tell us that, as the marginal costs of reproduction shrink, so should unit value. People still want physical books, but the only reason to restrict the digital reproduction of music and film today is to support artists, or — more to the point — to make money. The attempt to use restricted access as a business model in the face of this gigantic change seems not only unethical, but increasingly impractical. …
So we need to examine new models for funding creative works — to address the question of how cultural producers will survive under the new paradigm. New approaches to copyright and reproduction are not just necessary, but inevitable. Copyright — the right of a creator to control the reproduction of a work and to sell this control to others — is a legal device that was designed for an earlier social/technological moment.
Je ne suis absolument pas d’accord avec ces conclusions, mais, au-delà de tous les délires qu’on lit sur la loi DAVSI en ce moment, c’est la première fois que je vois la problématique bien posée. Donc ça me semble utile de répondre à ce genre d’arguments.