Re: when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom

[Christian Sciberras <uuf6429 () gmail com>]

That has always been viewed from the consumer perspective.

If you look at it from the producers' perspective, you'll see their right
to withhold their creative
content until you pay something back.

While the terminology is not correct, it doesn't mean you can abuse it and
expect people
to waste time for you.


Another thing to note, if artists, software companies etc were so nice to
actually want
to give all this stuff for free, I'm pretty sure no one is forcing them to
sell their content.
So don't talk about the "they're not loosing anything" bullshit to me.

Laurelai - Yes, I'm sure McDonalds have acknowledged your human right to a
free
internet connection. Next thing they'll be feeding you for free as well....





On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:26 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:02:09 PST, "Zach C." said:
>
> > If you buy an album used, the seller generally loses possession of it,
> you
> > gain possession of it at a reduced cost, and the original purchase still
> > gave the original seller and producer value.
>
> Note that if I shoplift a CD that sucks and isn't worth the $14.99 sticker
> price, I
> have deprived the producer of the ability to sell it to somebody else.
>  That's
> the crucial point that underlies our social concept of "theft" - if I take
> it from
> you, you don't have it anymore.
>
> If I copy an album that isn't worth the sticker price, and which I would
> not
> have purchased at that price, two things of note happen:
>
> 1) As much as the labels wish it were so, they can't count that as "lost
> revenue" because it wouldn't have acccrued to them anyhow, any more than a
> car
> dealership can legitimately call it "lost revenue" if I walk onto their
> lot,
> tell the salescritter they're crazy if they think I'll pay $28K for a given
> car, and walk off the lot. (Now, if they want to count the "Damn, we lost
> the
> $4.99 that guy *would* have paid if we charged that instead of $14.99",
> they're
> welcome to that. :)
>
> 2) More importantly, they still have the original bits and are free to look
> for other suckers who *will* pay $14.99.
>
> For the record, all my media is legitimately acquired, though a large
> portion
> *was* obtained used and if the producers don't like that, they're welcome
> to go
> re-read "first sale doctrine" ;)  Just trying to make people actually
> engage
> their neurons - this stuff is *not* easy to sort out, because intellectual
> property and digital information do *not* behave the same as cars and cows
> in
> the physical world, and unintended consequences of policy decisions are all
> *over* the place.  (DMCA anti-circumvention clause prohibiting me from
> fair-use
> accessing my own media, I'm looking at you. :)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/