|
|
Posted by anthonyberet on 10/05/25 11:27
FatKat wrote:
> Hardly a justification. Being the owner of something means you can not
> only set the price, but also decide whether to sell or not. If I
> decide to steal a car, the fact that the owner hadn't put it on the
> market doesn't change the fact that I've just taken a car that isn't
> mine. There are many compelling arguments for distinguishing file
> sharing from theft, but this is not one of them. Also, simply being
> out of print (thought they had a different term) doens't mean out of
> circulation - old record stores, individual collectors, E*bay offer a
> few of the avenues for obtaining hard-to-find music.
>
What is the difference for the copyright-holder between a collector
buying a second-hand record, or downloading it? In either case, the
collector could be getting a copyrighted piece of IP from somebody who
does not have permission to distribute it. In the case of a second-hand
record, it is likely that money will be changing hands.
The car argument is entirely irrelevant. In that case the collector is a
thief, because they have deprived an owner of their property against
their wishes.
Furthermore, in my view, when an item has cultural importance, the owner
should not be allowed to deprive the population of access to it.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|