>-----Original Message----- >From: full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk [mailto:full-disclosure- >boun...@lists.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of valdis.kletni...@vt.edu >Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 4:06 PM >To: Michael Schmidt >Cc: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk >Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of >freedom > >On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:06:28 GMT, Michael Schmidt said: >> You want to be very careful with that line of thought. You are taking >> the creator the rightful owners profits, which they are entitled to if >> it is a product they created to be sold. > >You might want to go read "Courtney Love Does The Math", and then ask >yourself the following: > >1) You can make a case that if you copy an album intead of buying it, you're >depriving somebody of profits. But what if it's an album that you would *not* >have bought at full price anyhow? Or one that you bought used (see "first >sale principle")?
These arguments do more harm than good. You can't base property law on what people may not have done (of course there are "not paid your taxes" etc - let's not get tied down with that). I'm actually surprised you made that comment. I have a product that I own the rights to. If you don't feel like paying full price, then don't buy it. You go down the street and buy a similar product for less money. That way I don't make money, and my competitor has. If this happens enough, I go out of business as an effect of how the market works. But if you were not going to pay full price, that doesn't give you any right to steal it. That is simply absurd. Now, many in the music industry have openly stated (I've heard anyway) that internet piracy is good for business. People hear music they wouldn't have heard, and buy the album. I've done this myself, and I agree with it. But whether or not the behavior ends up benefiting the industry or not is irrelevant; I've still broken the law. That's where is should end, but it doesn't. Sharing music not purchased is already illegal. The companies already have legal remedies available. Unfortunately, the industry lobbyists have convinced lawmakers that the action already being illegal isn't enough - they now want the legislative body to ENFORCE the law for them by giving execution rights to the plaintiff. That is freaking nuts. What should happen is that those who do not innovate in music distribution and rights management pay to see the legal process through. Then we're back to the first example where they would end up spending too much money on legal fees and go out of business where the guys who figure out a cool DRM scheme for sampling, sharing, etc end up making money, and the market takes care of its own. It's far easier and cheaper to get inept and ignorant legislators to extend judgment into enforcement with new laws. >2) Who gets those profits, the artist, the label, or the RIAA? Are you >stealing >profits from the artist, or are you stealing them from somebody else who was >attemting to steal them from the artist? The fun begins when the record companies start sniping each other. Remember when The Verve got their pants sued of by the Rolling Stones copyright holder for "Bittersweet Symphony"? It was a clean cut case of copyright infringement. What if SOPA or the next round of it does pass - will ABKCO Records legally be able to get Hut Records entire web site shut down? The main point here is that legal remedy for property rights already exists, and the holders of those rights should be required to exercise due process just like everyone else. t _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
