B Robson wrote:
> 
> 
> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
> 
>> B Robson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>>>
>>>> B Robson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's technically closer to tresspass, but the differences are too 
>>>>>> subtle for Kuri to understand, so I dumbed it down for him.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you end up sounding dumb. Lying doesn't help understanding the 
>>>>> topic.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What practical difference do you see that is so damnably 
>>>>>> important, anyway? The infringer is unjustly enriched, and the 
>>>>>> infringee is unjustly deprived of income. 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That last comment and Curt's analogy of stealing a watermelon 
>>>>> suggests that something has disappeared which is completely bogus. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The owner released the product on the condition that he would 
>>>> receive a certain amount for each copy. Not giving that amount when 
>>>> the owner has earned it (evidenced by you having a copy of his work) 
>>>> is not significantly different from taking that amount away from him.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is very different. By stealing something physical I have reduced 
>>> the capacity of the owner to make the market value/economic value of 
>>> that object. 
>>
>>
>> I rent hotel rooms for $110.00/night. If someone stays in the room but 
>> refuses to pay, how different is that from stealing $110.00 from me? 
>> Not much, I say. I'm sure that he would argue that the room was empty, 
>> and he wouldn't have rented it for $110.00 anyway. I'm fortunate: 
>> innkeepers have a whole set of rights denied to you common folks (and 
>> record companies), and I will get my $110.00 (I have the right, 
>> incidentally, to take any of his property that is in my hotel and sell 
>> it on the open market to regain my money).
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on using analogies? If you can't argue the specific 
> point raised then don't go off creating irrelevant analogies.

Because they aren't irrelevant. You tried to claim that the non-physical 
nature of the illegal behaviour makes it different, and I am pointing 
out a similar, non-physical "infringement" that you probably don't feel 
as comfortable excusing. It's a parallel situation: the guest hasn't 
damaged the room, deprived me of the room, or deprived me of title. He 
has just deprived me of the gain that I expect to receive by providing 
rooms.

The major point of the analogies is to demonstrate that if you acted 
similarly in non-internet related activities, you would be reviled, 
shunned, and probably jailed.

> 
> 
>>
>>> By copying something have I have only reduced his capacity to sell to 
>>> me. Let me change the facts of a real story to make a point.
>>>
>>> My music partner wrote a song and wanted it to have the same feel as 
>>> a cover song done by Miss B Spears. I went down to the CD rental 
>>> store to rent it and at home burnt a copy, cost me 200yen. The 
>>> entertainment industry lies by saying I have stolen 3,000yen. But 
>>> their loss is exactly zero. There is no way I would have paid 
>>> 3,000yen or 2,000yen for that load of shit. In fact if the rental had 
>>> been 500yen I would not have taken it. If I saw it for sale second 
>>> hand at 200yen I would probably buy it so I "bought" that CD at 
>>> roughly my own demand cost, roughly 200yen.
>>>
>>> Now if I had copied Nine Inch Nails "Only" then they would have 
>>> missed out on *my* sale of 3,000yen, although it's arguable that they 
>>> may not have missed out on a sale at all.
>>>
>>> Recently I thought I would buy the complete Police collection as I 
>>> had all of them on vinyl. In HMV they were 3,700yen each. There is no 
>>> way I am going to spend 3,700yen on an album that is 30 years old and 
>>> I have already bought. I'll let you guess what I did.
>>
>>
>> You probably deprived the owner of the song rights of the profits on 
>> the high-fidelity, non-degrading version of the song that you had 
>> never purchased and have no right to possess.
> 
> 
> I have purchased all of those albums.
> 
>>
>> If I sell you a paperback book, does that give you the right to 
>> bootleg a hardbound limited edition of the same text?
> 
> 
> Again a fatuous analogy. Your use of bootleg does not match any 
> definition that I am aware of.
Not fatuous at all. You bought a record album. You have the right to 
make copies of that album for personal use to your heart's content. 
Buying that record album does *not* give you the right to download 
digital versions of the same songs.


>>>>> If I steal a CD from a shop, the shop owner has lost that copy, the 
>>>>> amount he paid for it and the profit - he no longer owns it and 
>>>>> cannot sell it. However copying something does not subject the 
>>>>> owner to a loss of title.
>>>>
>>>> It is still an infringement, and it is still wrong. A part of title 
>>>> to something is the right to control access to it. Arguing that 
>>>> widespread infringment may actually increase the economic benefit to 
>>>> the owner through some kind of involuntary advertising (which is 
>>>> where I think your economic argument is going) misses the point: the 
>>>> owner has the right to control how his property is used, and no one 
>>>> is justified in usurping that control.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it is an infringement and there are serious issues with people 
>>> downloading. But no, that is not where my argument is going at all. I 
>>> am not sure but your use of the term "property" is probably wrong.
>>>
>>> There are serious issues with copyrights. Disney and other 
>>> corporations have managed to get Mickey Mouse protected by getting 
>>> Congress to extend  copyright terms, which is highly ironic as Disney 
>>> got started by ripping off public domain fairytales. Mickey should 
>>> have moved into the public domain already.
>>>
>>> As you well know (or at least should) the entertainment and software 
>>> industries attempt to control the products they sell, attempting to 
>>> licence rather than sell products. In Australia it is illegal to make 
>>> a personal copy, even to transfer from one media to the other. Region 
>>> codes are an attempt to segment markets. A lot of software has been 
>>> rigged not to work outside the region it is targeted at. All this 
>>> would be illegal in any other industry. I cannot buy an English 
>>> version of the software I want in Japan and US based suppliers will 
>>> not ship OS because of the licensing agreeements. Recent software I 
>>> bought requires permission from a central server whenever I 
>>> (re)install. Imagine a book publisher telling you how you can use 
>>> your books!
>>
>>
>>
>> All of which is justification for attempting to modify copyright law. 
>> Arguing that some copyright holders are the moral equivalent of robber 
>> barons does nothing to reduce the immorality of downloading.
> 
> 
> You should stick to what I write, not what you assume I think.

Then please explain the relationship of the morality of the copyright 
holder to making copies of the copyrighted thing. I assumed that your 
long dissertation had some relevance to the discussion.

KWW