Somehow I doubt my employer, a somewhat large software company, would be cool with me posting articles on their web site in which I state my flippant disregard for the fundamentals of copyright law.
I suspect any article which said something like "Copying the company's software is annoying to me, but not as annoying as stealing my laptop!" would be the last article I'd write - and I doubt I'd be writing any more software there, either. And for good reason: the only reason they have any money to pay me or anyone else is because copyright law ensures that we can sell what we make.
Glib.
Wait, er, are you criticizing Matt’s content here, or his seeming obliviousness to the idea that his employer depends on copyright law to pay him (which I’m not sure is even true in his case)? I mean, I agree with your point that if you wrote an article saying copying the company’s software is just fine and dandy you probably wouldn’t be employed much longer, but I’m not sure what Matt’s employer is paying him for (my guess is to speak his mind and drive viewers to their website).
Anyways, just confused as to the critique of Matt* here.
*Not that I know him, it’s just easier to type than Yglesias.
i’m saying that it’s odd to be so blase about copyright law when you’re writing for an organization that relies on copyright law to prevent me from taking all of the content, putting it on this site and selling ads thus depriving you of the fruits of your labor.
I could see that if Thinkprogress et. al. were charging for access to their site, but AFAIK they’re not. Maybe if you were running an aggregator site where I could get all I wanted by going there and never visiting Thinkprogress his employer would have a problem from the lack of ad revenue, but even then I think their primary goal is disseminating their message, and the ad revenues are just icing.
More broadly, I think his fundamental point is generally correct, copying a CD is not the same as taking someone else’s shoes. That misses some of the nuances, such as, if the person copying the CD would have bought a copy otherwise, then there really has been a loss to the copyright owner (and by extension, musician, song writer, publisher, etc.), but that’s not always the case. The counterargument there is “well, if everyone can get it for free, then no one will buy, even if they were otherwise able and willing,” which I guess is why we have copyright law in the first place (albeit in its horrible current form, along with patent law).
In any event, thanks for clarifying and enjoy the holiday weekend!