|
|
Posted by FatKat on 10/17/27 11:27
anthonyberet wrote:
> 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?
Because he's making copies of the music. When you sell the album,
there are still as many albums in existence as when you started out.
When you DL it, you're making copies - and if the album is popular
enough, it's not going to be one, or two or a dozen copies.
> In either case, the collector could be getting a copyrighted piece of IP
> from somebody who does not have permission to distribute it.
The 2nd-hand dealer isn't distributing it - he's exchanging it for
something else. The sharer IS distributing it.
> In the case of a second-hand record, it is likely that money will be
> changing hands.
The music changes hands as well. This is not the case with sharing.
The original music stays where it is, just multiplying. Also, the sale
is linear or serial in the sense that it's one at a time. Multi-DL's
can occur simultaneously.
> 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.
Isn't this pretty much what the RIAA has been saying all along?
>
> Furthermore, in my view, when an item has cultural importance, the owner
> should not be allowed to deprive the population of access to it.
That's an attractive idea, however there are two problems with that.
First off, the lack of profit may have a chilling effect on whether the
authors of these cultural icons will publish at all. Secondly, I'm not
sure I'd appreciate having my ownership interest in something impinged
or abrogated because somebody else thought it was culturally important.
Lastly, it's a bit of a leap to equate setting limits on DL'g music to
deprivation of it. Music hasn't been outlawed - it's still on the
radio and can be purchased in stores. When you think about how much
music is available, you're not being deprived anything.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|