Four on ( a real student speaks) Does File Trading FundTerrorism?

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: "Paul E. Robichaux" <paul () robichaux net>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:54:52 -0500
To: dave () farber net
Subject: **SPAM** RE: [IP] ( a real student speaks) Does File Trading
FundTerrorism?

Mary Shaw makes an excellent point: Rep. Carter's plan is a terrible idea.
Having said that, Mr. Papadoupoulous' argument can be summarized thusly:
"If
you copy something that you wouldn't have otherwise paid for, it's not
stealing. Even if it harms someone, if it's for the entertainment of the
general population, it's OK."

Even by the standards of dorm-room bull sessions, this is an unusually
puerile argument that completely ignores the legitimate interests of those
who create entertainment or information content. The existing distribution
model is clearly broken wrt what consumers really want, and the RIAA & MPAA
are behaving inexcusably-- but two wrongs don't make a right.

If you want to swap copyrighted materials, fine, go ahead, but don't attempt
to cloak it in the mantle of social improvement for hoi polloi. Call it what
it is: taking what doesn't belong to you.

 

------ End of Forwarded Message


------ Forwarded Message
From: Alexandros Papadopoulos <apapadop () cmu edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:39:07 -0500
To: paul () robichaux net
Cc: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: FW: **SPAM** RE: [IP] ( a real student speaks) Does File
Trading FundTerrorism?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 14 March 2003 15:00, you wrote:
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: "Paul E. Robichaux" <paul () robichaux net>
> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:54:52 -0500
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: **SPAM** RE: [IP] ( a real student speaks) Does File Trading
> FundTerrorism?
>
> Mary Shaw makes an excellent point: Rep. Carter's plan is a terrible
> idea. Having said that, Mr. Papadoupoulous' argument can be
> summarized thusly: "If
> you copy something that you wouldn't have otherwise paid for, it's
> not stealing. Even if it harms someone, if it's for the entertainment
> of the general population, it's OK."

You're over-simplifying the situation. My stand is that corporations
don't loose anything but their (already excessive) power, while society
greatly benefits. This may sound simple-minded when applied to DVDs and
music, but books and software are more air-tight examples of material
that is copyrighted and given out at the highest possible price to
consumers.

The current system creates poor artists (authors, musicians, actors,
programmers), poor consumers, and rich middlemen (RIAA, MPAA). This is
a highly inefficient model, as you acknowledge, and it's only getting
worse (think e-books, software lock-in). Consumers are being exploited.

> Even by the standards of dorm-room bull sessions, this is an
> unusually puerile argument that completely ignores the legitimate
> interests of those who create entertainment or information content.
> The existing distribution model is clearly broken wrt what consumers
> really want, and the RIAA & MPAA are behaving inexcusably-- but two
> wrongs don't make a right.

So you're saying that by ripping a DVD I'm depriving the artists that
were involved of their rightful returns? I would invite you to skim
through the Courtley Love article, consider the economics of creative
work production and distributions (I claim insider knowledge here, as
my father is a book publisher), and reconsider.

My argument is not "screw the suits", as you imply. It's not "getting
back at them". I'm just screaming murder against this amazing
propaganda that equates people who share material, with blood-thirsty
pirates (or, in the spirit of the times, terrorists). Unless a
distribution method that doesn't add 400% of costs that "get passed on"
to the consumer prevails, forcing people to buy their own copy of every
copyrighted material is wrong. The money doesn't go to the
artist/producer, it goes to the distributor, that exploits both ends.

> If you want to swap copyrighted materials, fine, go ahead, but don't
> attempt to cloak it in the mantle of social improvement for hoi
> polloi. Call it what it is: taking what doesn't belong to you.

"Copyrighted material" does not mean "properly copyrighted material".
Copyright was supposed to protect artists. It was never meant to extend
the monopoly power of corporations. With the recent ruthless policy of
"copyright managers" (RIAA, MPAA etc), that clearly demonstrates their
intent of holding copyright forever (Sonny Bono Act), I have to wonder
why would anyone stand up to their interests. They are as blunt as it
gets about manipulating anything that can be copyrighted. What do we
have to gain from that?

- -A
- --
http://andrew.cmu.edu/~apapadop/pub_key.asc
3DAD 8435 DB52 F17B 640F  D78C 8260 0CC1 0B75 8265
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+cloLgmAMwQt1gmURAvILAJ49rCoNSFni8CqnsctF8TiwRajluACfXg09
J+F3cSJZnjPdsiRCm54cNR0=
=9AN8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



------ End of Forwarded Message

------ Forwarded Message
From: "J. Paul Reed" <preed () sigkill com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:38:17 -0800
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>, Alexandros Papadopoulos
<apapadop () cmu edu>
Subject: A real student responds to a "real student", re: Does File Trading
Fund Terrorism?

On 14 Mar 2003 at 14:33:37, Dave Farber moved bits on my disk to say:

> A student participating in file swapping is not "stealing" DVDs. Calling
> file swapping "stealing" relies on the premise that the student would
> shell out the $$$ to buy the DVD, if the material was not available for
> free. This is a big assumption, usually not true.

Yes, they are stealing.

Your claim that an assumption that students would purchase the DVD is a
necessary condition to prove that they're committing theft is wrong; in
reality, that assumption is only necessary to believe the industry's
amorphous claims of "lost profits."

But students *are* breaking the law and they *are* stealing intellectual
property.

As a student about to graduate myself, I'm appalled at the number of (often
computer science) students who pirate music, DVDs, and *software*, and
completely ignore the fact that they're shooting the industry they expect
to give them a job in a few short years in the head.

One need look only to countries like China to see what rampant piracy will
do for the industries that rely on intellectual property, like software
development. Students seem to think it's OK to pirate this material (and
clog networks often paid for by taxpayers while they're doing it) but if
you ask them if it would be acceptable to pirate software *they* had
written, not only do they change their tune, the scary part is they HAVE
NOT EVEN CONSIDERED THAT.

> To draw a parallelism to this, I occasionally read the newspapers my
> father buys, but I wouldn't buy one of my own. So, am I a "pirate" for
> not buying a copy of my own and reading his newspapers [0]?

This is a horrid analogy. I don't think anyone in the movie, music, or
software industry is claiming you're a "pirate" for going over to your
Dad's house and watching a DVD or listening to a CD of his.

This argument that "Well, it's OK to pirate material because I wouldn't
have bought it anyway" is bogus. If you can't afford a piece of software,
you shouldn't be using it. Period. Same thing goes for DVDs and music.

Don't get me wrong: I think Valenti is as crazy and anti-consumer as the
next guy (especially with claims like this), and I *don't* support all of
these DRM plans from Microsoft, Intel, and Hollywood to make it so I can't
even watch a DVD in my own house without having Hollywood "approve" it.

But has ANYONE considered that maybe the reason these companies are going
overboard with marketing and lobbying and trying to build technology that
strangles consumer choice is because they're afraid--and often rightly
so--of this "young generation's" attitude--your attitude--that music, DVD,
and software are all "free" and "if I can't afford it... well... I'll just
copy it and no one's harmed?" People are harmed. And if you're having
trouble finding a job right now, like I am, you'll know exactly who's
harmed.

Maybe if the younger consumer market--students included--showed some
maturity in the way they used technology, $MEGACORP wouldn't be so
inflexible about releasing intellectual property.

Because this is IP, I'll include an interesting article Robert Cringely
wrote that covers some of these issues in regards to music and movies;
note, though, that it doesn't advocate this attitude that *theft* "is OK":

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20021128.html

Later,
Paul
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  J. Paul Reed -- 0xDF8708F8 || preed () sigkill com || web.sigkill.com/preed
  To hold on to sanity too tight is insane.   -- Nick Falzone, Pushing Tin

   I use PGP; you should use PGP too... if only to piss off John Ashcroft


------ End of Forwarded Message

------ Forwarded Message
From: Scott Moskowitz <scott () bluespike com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:20:26 -0500
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] MUST READ Courtney Love does the math The controversial
singer takes on record label profits, Napster and "sucka VCs.

On 3/14/03 4:03 PM, "Dave Farber" <dave () farber net> wrote:

> This is an intreging article that explores the economics of the record
> industry. It is a must read.
>
> Dave
>
> Courtney Love does the math
>
> The controversial singer takes on record label profits, Napster and "sucka
> VCs." 

Dave:

Too bad there has yet to be a Charlie Chaplin and his United Artists effort
for the music space.

Courtney's article is very relevant and more so now that the trading of
music is so pervasive.

Great choice for IP!

Sincerely,
Scott


------ End of Forwarded Message


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/