Miscellaneous > Intellectual Property & Law
Does this make me a criminal?
slave:
quote:Originally posted by M51DPS:
It's stealing if you deprive the owners of the money they're demanding for it. You would taking away profits.
--- End quote ---
What is this, some sort of retroactive definition of stealing? They never had the "profit" to begin with, so how could I possibly take it from them? I may be denying them profits, but that's a totally different situation. This is like telling me I'm stealing from a book publisher when I go to read a book at the library. Or when I lend my friend a DVD. Or when I shop at Wal-Mart instead of K-Mart. In all of those circumstances you could argue from the same logic the copyright regimes are using to defend their IP monopolies. The fact that I have to relinquish my copy of Friday After Next so my friend Joe can watch it is beside the point. After all how often would I want to watch the movie at the same time? The point is that he is watching - for free - something he would normally have to pay a media cartel to watch. He is denying them profits and therefore is a thief by their same definition.
insomnia:
quote:Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
The point is that he is watching - for free - something he would normally have to pay a media cartel to watch. He is denying them profits and therefore is a thief by their same definition.
--- End quote ---
He's not watching something you normally have to pay for.
What he downloaded is not a copy of anything that exists (yet). Their is no media you can use for tv or computer available.
[ November 03, 2003: Message edited by: insomnia ]
M51DPS:
This is just my interpretation guys, and I think it's horrible what the RIAA does, and people should not be charged for ideas. Unfotunately things such as copyright laws and "intellectual property" screw things up.
Laukev7:
quote: No you're not. That presumption relies on the misconception that artists should be able to expect to receive payment for every person who uses their work, rather than just being compensated for the amount of work done in the first place. The potential redistribution of their work is infinte. So what you're suggesting is that an artist is entitled to theoretically infinite financial compensation for a finite amount of work.
--- End quote ---
I am a science student. NOTHING is infinite, according to Lavoisier's Law of Conservation. NOTHING. Even data takes space on your hard drive. Hard drives take space in your computer. Hard drives cost money to produce. So 'infinite' potential redistribution is limited to the number of hard drives / CD's available. Just wanted to nitpick, by the way.
Even then, the artiste does not benefit from an infinite financial compensation, because he is not immortal.
Stryker:
quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:
I am a science student. NOTHING is infinite, according to Lavoisier's Law of Conservation. NOTHING. Even data takes space on your hard drive. Hard drives take space in your computer. Hard drives cost money to produce. So 'infinite' potential redistribution is limited to the number of hard drives / CD's available. Just wanted to nitpick, by the way.
Even then, the artiste does not benefit from an infinite financial compensation, because he is not immortal.
--- End quote ---
That's bullshit and completely off subject.
Sure infinite wasn't the best word for him to use, but you know what he means. An artist along with the recording company has the potential to get every piece of money that exists. All for whistling a few tunes. There should be some set limit, say a song can't bring in over $20,000 profit per song or something... then after that limit is reached the music may be freely distributed. Some changes should be made.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version