> > Two things make copyright infringement legally not stealing:
> > 1) Digital content is not "property." Property is physical, like a
> > loaf of bread or a pair of crotchless panties. There is no such thing
> > as "intellectual property."
>
> Oh, I disagree with this. Property being only something physical is an
> antiquated definition. Intellectual property is a real thing. The
> question is, who owns it and what form does it take? Copyright law has a
> valid purpose-- to protect the profits of copyright holders. If I write
> a book and get it published, the point of copyright law in that case is
> so that I (and unfortunately, the publisher) can partake in the profits
> from every copy of that book sold. If people obey the law, then the only
> way I can lose money is by people making archival copies for themselves,
> something covered by the "Fair Use" clause.
Why should copyright holders be guaranteed profits? The only reason
they get compensated for copies in the first place is that it *used*
to cost money to make copies. How much does it cost to get a
million-copy edition of a book printed? A *lot*. How much does it
cost to disseminate a hundred million copies of a PDF on the internet?
Nothing. So why should copyright holders receive a fee for every copy
when it doesn't cost them anything to distribute a copy?
I always hear the argument, "If I make a song, I should be able to say
what happens to it." You do. Right up until the point you sell it.
Then it's mine to do with as I please. I'm going to listen to it as
many times as I want, in as many places as I want, I'm going to have
the lyrics tattooed onto my palm, I'm going to put it as the ringtone
on my cellphone, I'm going to store a copy on every one of my
media-playing devices, and I'm going to let all of my friends listen
to it every time they ask me. Because that's what happens when you
sell something.
But now you(in the hypothetical sense) say, "But a song isn't the same
as a loaf of bread, it's special!" Really? So it's the same as a
loaf of bread when you want to count it as stealing, but it's
magically different when it comes to fair use of something I've
purchased.
> The more people get aggravated by distributor practices, the more they
> will either complain loudly to change things, or become part of the
> criminal ranks to fight the practices. Lotus gave up their stupid copy
> protection scheme after enough complaints. But I'm not at all sure that
> Microsoft and the RIAA are going to cause enough people enough grief
> that they'll be forced to give up DRM.
...but every time people complain, they're labeled communist warez
pirates who just want to steal from innocent working artists...
> The conduct of distributors doesn't really have anything to do with
> copyright law. Copyright law says I can't make a copy beyond "archival"
> copies (etc.) for my personal use. Distributors are not operating
> outside any law by insisting that you can only use their content in
> certain ways or under certain circumstances. We typically agree that
> what they're doing is wrong and bad, but we really only have two
> choices: 1) pressure them or lawmakers to eliminate their bad practices,
> or 2) don't participate in their part of the economy. (Or 3) illegally
> copy their stuff anyway.) My opinion is that content providers who
> insist on these kinds of measures really only mark themselves as corrupt
> by doing so. They're corrupt, so they assume (and act like) everyone
> else is corrupt.
My point/complaint is that distributors are trying to *make* their
(agreedly bad/wrong) worldview law.
-- Tcsh: Now with higher FPS! http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:06:38 EDT