Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
> 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.

Funny, I always though real estate was the most physical property you 
could own or is this one of those Matrix thingies.

I do not respond to analogies as an argument always ensures as to why 
your analogy is not accurate. It's like a duck who goes up to a dog and 
say "quack quack" but the dog doesn't know what the duck is talking 
about and the duck is pretty stupid anyway so the dog gets all confused, 
and the dog barks a couple of times but the duck doesn't understand 
either, and the seed that falls on the stoney ground doesn't grow so the 
stupid virgins ask for more oil.


> 
> 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.

The major point of analogies is to dumb things down, which seems to be 
what you like to do.



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

That is not bootleg, that is pirate. You want to discuss legal and 
economic terms but not to use the correct terms. I still don't 
understand what point you are trying to make. You think I can make a 
hardcover out of a soft cover?

And I've already pointed out to you that I do not have the right to make 
personal copies.

> 
> 
>>>>>> 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.
> 

You've left the law and moved into morality now. Fine Rev Williams 
forgive me for I have sinned, I have had rude thoughts about a girl at work.

I mentioned those things to point out that the entertainment industry 
continues to restrict our rights and do things which would be illegal in 
any other industry and governments are falling over themselves to help. 
These are related to the discussion but not as you assume justification 
of what I have already agreed is illegal. You wish to place these 
businesses on some pedestal based on what appears to be your 
misunderstanding of the law and lack of understanding of economics.