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.


> 
>> 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.


> 
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.