> As long as you agree that non-commercial sharing must not be forbidden, you
can have sites (or P2P networks) where copies of the digital work are
available at no price. That is financially unbeatable. Prohibiting
non-commercial sharing does not change that fact.
In a "pay what ever you want" system that allows 0 as the price to pay,
putting the content in P2P networks loose it's sense if you seek for
obtaining the data gratis. Wired, but people upload software that is both
libre and gratis to P2P networks. I have always though that it's to make a
backup in case the official site goes down.
In any case. This is actually good, if people like the content and are
willing to pay, then they just go to the website and pay what ever they want
as the price.
> I actually consider that licenses that prohibit non-commercial uses and/or
derivatives are OK for artistic works. Because artistic works are
non-functional (rms' point you have already mentioned), forbidding
non-commercial uses and/or derivatives is not denying the control of the
audience's work. Arguably, the audience does not achieve anything by reading
a novel or listening to a song, or watching a movie, etc. On the contrary,
using software (or reading cooking recipes or manuals or encyclopedias, etc.)
is achieving a work and the user deserves the control on her work, the four
freedoms.
I agree. non-commercial distribution is important for people to share in
freedom. I would still buy some non-functional data that says "you shall not
share". But only if I'm sure that none of my friends will ask me for a copy.
