UPI's The Peter Principles: Hardware vs. software

United Press International ^ | January 25, 2005 | Peter Roff

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I got my popcorn. Gonna sit back and watch this thread.

[Rex Anderson]

I'll join you.

[kimbermatic]

It really comes down to whether when the consumer buys the DVD, or music do they own that copy and can do with it as they like for personal use. Or does the consumer just rent the content and is buying the media?

I will watch what the court does because if they side with the RIAA and others then most of the technology from Apple to the PC's we are typing on today contain illegal hardware and programs making the companies liable.

[PDR]

the technology products you describe have, as the Betamax case said, substantial non-infringing uses... that is why this is apples and oranges. When you buy a DVD you are -- n effect -- licensing the material contained on it for personal use. You are, as a practical matter, not permitted to make a business out of redistributing that material to other people -- for free or for gain, which is what the exchange of files is effectvely -- at the expense of the true owner of the copy protected materials.

[thoughtomator]

The content manufacturers lose money each time someone uses a peer-to-peer program to send a pirated movie or piece of music to another person via the Internet

False. If it weren't free, many viewers/listeners would not get the content at all. To say otherwise is to ignore basic economics, supply and demand.

[PDR]

No. True. The exchange deprives the content makers of the revenue due them as owners of the material... whether that material would be purchased if not available for free (as it likely would be in more than a few instances) is irrelevent. What you are suggesting is that it is okay to steal something if you wouldn't but it in the marketplace because -- otherwise -- it would sit on the shelf unsold and, either way, the company doesn't realize a return on the item.

[thoughtomator]

I'm not at all saying it's ok - don't impute. I am saying that there is a segment of people that will not spend money on things that they would view/listen to if they could get it free. In these cases, no money would go to the content authors and you can't lose money that doesn't exist.

[Paul C. Jesup]

not permitted to make a business out of redistributing that material to other people -- for free or for gain

If you doing it for free then how can it be a business?

[Uncle Fud]

Confusing article. Hardware manufacturers should not be confused with P2P site owners and users. And content creators should not be confused with the RIAA and MPAA.

[PDR]

to follow that forward then, and i do not as a practical matter accept the logic of your example, the existance of the kind of people you describe distort the behavior of the marketplace, thus it would be irrational for the content providers to continue in business -- markets, remember, are ratonal.

[bvw]

The content manufacturers lose money each time someone uses a peer-to-peer program to send a pirated movie or piece of music to another person via the Internet.

This is untrue. They may lose what would have been a sale, but they do not lose money. Potential money is not real money.

Let's look at "potential" money. Say if Jake steals next week's lottery ticket from Sam, could Sam sue for the jackpot -- or just for the purchase price? If we use "potential sale" theory the value stolen is the whole of the jackpot.

[PDR]

there is still a transaction involved... no money changes hands but items of value are exchanged

[sittnick]

Thoughtometer did not state whether the companies were due the money, only that they were deprived of money they would have gotten had the file downloading been impossible.

It was disingenuous for Lotus to have claimed a loss of billions of dollars on Lotus 1-2-3 in the 1980's because pimply teenagers had made copies of it when there was no chance in Hades they could have coughed up the $300 for the product. The real loser in software piracy is not the Microsofts and Adobes of the world, but the would-be low-priced competitors who would never get a chance because so many who would have bought the low-cost product hust pirated the high-priced one.

In any event, all of the numbers of lost revenue is completely made up. There is no good way to know how much money would have been spent on these products if these downloads were impossible.

[PDR]

as to your first point only, the consumer electronics folks have sided with the p2p folks... that may be what has confused the issue

[Paul C. Jesup]

there is still a transaction involved... no money changes hands but items of value are exchanged

But 'exchange' requires you to get something in return, which is not the case.

[PDR]

not if it is a losing ticket

[Uncle Fud]

If I am "licensing the material contained on it for personal use" then making a backup copy for my personal use, or transferring that material to a portable player for my personal use, should be non-infringing usages by definition. Unfortunately, that has not yet been legally established.

[thoughtomator]

No, it would just be irrational for them to continue to do business in the assinine way they currently do.

[free_at_jsl.com]

It also needs to be said that if you apply the **AA's logic in other scenarios, real problems start popping up. For example, should firearm manufacturers be prosecuted each time somebody uses a gun in an illegal manner? Their products have both legal and illegal uses. It's up to the product user, not the manufacturer to bear the responsibility for illegal use.