Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!news.moat.net!newsfeed-3001.bay.webtv.net!nntp-out.svc.us.xo.net!nntp1-feeder.SJ.svc.us.xo.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!sjc1.nntp.concentric.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-08!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Kevin Wayne Williams Newsgroups: fj.life.in-japan Subject: Re: Piracy = Death! Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:50:45 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <11gnrl1mahv3tbf@news.supernews.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <11gjqni9csnqe59@news.supernews.com> <11gk5c51kmu5t77@news.supernews.com> <11gk9ntbog7hice@news.supernews.com> <11gkvl7s2mli867@news.supernews.com> <11gnh2idmml3k18@news.supernews.com> <11gnmnl98hchua8@news.supernews.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 181 Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.life.in-japan:29052 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