Oh, but this is a discussion about copyright, because copyright exists for a reason. My behavior is consistent with the stated aims of copyright. Your proposed behavior of "nobody listens to the album and it sits unheard in a vault somewhere" is not. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with copyright law.
Here's a real example: New Musik's album "Warp". I bought the cassette, because it was all I could find. Then I bought a vinyl LP when I managed to find that, because the cassette was going to wear out and I figured I could tape the LP and listen to the copy. What I really wanted was a CD, but Sony wasn't selling any. So I bought a pirate CD bootleg. I shamelessly indulged in copyright violation. Later, when Sony came out with an official CD, I purchased that. I emphatically deny that my behavior in engaging in copyright violation was bad or immoral.
Here's another real example: Laurie Anderson's "Home of the Brave". Warner own the rights. They do not sell it on DVD, on iTunes, on anything. So I downloaded a pirate copy, as have many other people. If nobody had done so, Laurie Anderson would not have made a penny more in royalties. Nor would Warner have made any more profit. All that would have happened would be that a lot fewer people would have seen the movie. And that's not the purpose of copyright. (Alright, you say, but I could have purchased a VCR and a used copy of the old VHS release and watched that--but that wouldn't have put money in Laurie Anderson's pocket either, and there we're definitely starting to get into the gray area of what constitutes "reasonable".) So again, I reject the characterization of my actions as immoral, and in fact I would defend them to the artist herself. It's not that I'm rationalizing because I don't want to pay; I've got a big stack of (I think) every Laurie Anderson album ever released on CD, all purchased legitimately, that says otherwise.
I get the sense that you are viewing intellectual property as an end in itself, or as an essential good which exists without rationale and should confer right to control, like physical property. If that's the case, then why not eternal copyright? Surely the idea that someone's property eventually becomes owned by the public to do what they like with, is the public having a horrible sense of entitlement?
(I also get the sense that your apparently intense dislike for The Oatmeal may be warping your opinions somewhat.)
no subject
Here's a real example: New Musik's album "Warp". I bought the cassette, because it was all I could find. Then I bought a vinyl LP when I managed to find that, because the cassette was going to wear out and I figured I could tape the LP and listen to the copy. What I really wanted was a CD, but Sony wasn't selling any. So I bought a pirate CD bootleg. I shamelessly indulged in copyright violation. Later, when Sony came out with an official CD, I purchased that. I emphatically deny that my behavior in engaging in copyright violation was bad or immoral.
Here's another real example: Laurie Anderson's "Home of the Brave". Warner own the rights. They do not sell it on DVD, on iTunes, on anything. So I downloaded a pirate copy, as have many other people. If nobody had done so, Laurie Anderson would not have made a penny more in royalties. Nor would Warner have made any more profit. All that would have happened would be that a lot fewer people would have seen the movie. And that's not the purpose of copyright. (Alright, you say, but I could have purchased a VCR and a used copy of the old VHS release and watched that--but that wouldn't have put money in Laurie Anderson's pocket either, and there we're definitely starting to get into the gray area of what constitutes "reasonable".) So again, I reject the characterization of my actions as immoral, and in fact I would defend them to the artist herself. It's not that I'm rationalizing because I don't want to pay; I've got a big stack of (I think) every Laurie Anderson album ever released on CD, all purchased legitimately, that says otherwise.
I get the sense that you are viewing intellectual property as an end in itself, or as an essential good which exists without rationale and should confer right to control, like physical property. If that's the case, then why not eternal copyright? Surely the idea that someone's property eventually becomes owned by the public to do what they like with, is the public having a horrible sense of entitlement?
(I also get the sense that your apparently intense dislike for The Oatmeal may be warping your opinions somewhat.)