|
|
Posted by anthonyberet on 09/15/05 23:04
FatKat wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
>
>>"Don M." <newsreader@nospam4fineartsnospam.com> wrote in message
>>news:8fWdneIQFtofWrreRVnyig@giganews.com...
>>
>>>"Karrde" <karrde_smuggler_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4327b251_2@x-privat.org...
>>>
>>>>"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
>>>
>>>news:3om1pqF6hj27U1@individual.net...
>>>
>>>>>Karrde wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>OH, FFS! - When is this old chestnut going to be put to bed?
>>>>>- It is *not* stealing. The legal definition of stealing is quite
>>>>>specific, and does not apply to copyright infringement.
>>>>>You may personally think it is morally equivalent to stealing, but it
>>>>>is
>>>>>quite untrue to say it *is* stealing.
>>>>
>>>>If something is the "moral equivalent" to stealing, why would it not BE
>>>>stealing?
>>>
>>>===========
>>>
>>>You may be right. Greed is the moral equivalent to stealing, so perhaps
>>>the entertainment
>>>industry IS stealing.
>>
>>I can think of many times that I have felt "ripped off" after leaving the
>>theater. What file sharing does is put pressure on the movie industry to
>>actually make *gasp*..........good movies. Movies that are woth the price
>>of admission.
>>
>
> That's a tantalizing rationale - we're just getting back at those
> Hollywood hacks. But if that were true, we probably wouldn't be
> stealing at all. Sounds ironic that we're blaming the industry for
> generating crap, yet steal...er...copy their crap nonetheless.
>
I think we can see the effects of our efforts already - in the music
industry. One can currently download a great deal of music from many
websites for fees which are getting more reasonable all the time.
This is what I wanted - access to information, at the touch of a button.
I don't mind paying for it, but it is clear that the industry wouldn't
allow it to happen unless others were doing it for them first, and who
could only be defeated by providing a more reliable service.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|