Posted on 07/06/2003 9:08:26 AM PDT by John Jorsett
The Recording Industry Association of America's announcement on June 25 that it will start tracking down and suing users of file-sharing programs has yet to spook people, say developers of these applications.
"Forget about it, dude -- even genocidal litigation can't stop file sharers," said Wayne Rosso, president of Grokster, one of several systems that allow users to upload and download files -- many of which are unauthorized MP3 copies of songs published by the RIAA's member companies. Rosso said file-trading activity among Grokster users has increased by 10 percent in the past few days. Morpheus, another file-trading program, has seen similar growth.
Maybe MP3 downloaders are interpreting the recording industry's threat -- an escalation from its earlier strategy of targeting file-sharing developers -- as a sort of "last call" announcement. Starting June 26, RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a news conference, the group would collect evidence against consumers illegally trading files of copyrighted music, with lawsuits to follow in a couple of months.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Sure..
1) What will you charge me with if I build a boat for my own pleasure?
2) What exemption do you claim from copyright law?
As I said, good luck in court.
You'll need it.
It was my belief that you posted this, and I wanted to respond to it, even though it was not addressed to me, as I felt it had a very important idea in it. Apologies
It's a falsehood.
Again, what will you charge me with for building my own boat for my own use?
?
While you, OTOH will be charged with violating the US code.
Now, let me get this straight..
If I build a boat, for my own use, it's illegal.
That's your point, isn't it?
Now.. please go and find me the applicable portion of copyright law that you will charge me with.
That's not a problem for you, is it?
Infringing copyright?
And again, what will you charge me with?
Even if you were right (which, you aren't) it in no way legitimizes your endeavor.
It's illegal regardless.
Now, again.. I am infringing copyright?
An important detail is left out of your example. Without the original Toyota truck, in analogy to music copying, no one would be making them. Without the original, there is no copy. Why? Because the person making teh copy is not expending the same effort that was expended in making the original. They are simply benefitting from that effort without expending the same effort themself.
Toyota does not price its trucks based simply on the materials and labor that goes into fabricating and assembling the truck. A friend who worked for GM told me that a $20,000 GM car may have only one or two thousand dollars worth of manufacturing costs associated. So why are cars such a "rip off". Because they aren't. GM also has to recover their R&D costs, risks, advertising, and other costs from selling cars. If you were to knock off a GM car, you could do so for a few thousand dollars. Would that be stealing from GM? I think so. What you are stealing is GM's R&D. Their effort. You can call that "intellectual property" if you want but my point is that benefitting from that effort without compensating GM and without GMs permission (or Toyota, in your example) is stealing their labor just as surely as I'd be stealing a neighborhood kids labor if I didn't pay him for mowing my lawn or a locksmith's labor if I didn't pay him for opening my car. Is it theft in a physical property sense? Maybe not. Is it theft in a "taking something that doesn't belong to me without compensating the owner" sense? Yes. People are not entitled to take the labor of others without compensating them.
With resepct to used CDs, a CD is priced based on the fact that it will be played again and again and may be resold. That's why they are so expensive. If the RIAA could price songs on a per-play basis, a song might cost only 5 cents per play.
you speak as if online distribution is a proven method of reducing piracy, which it isn't. True, but that's a little like saying that the general principle "what goes up must come down" does not prove that if I throw this particular ball up, that it will come down. Perhaps not, but that's the way to bet. What online distribution will do is reduce distribution cost enormously, making it possible to reduce price significantly while making the same profit. There are reasons to believe (let's not conduct Econ 102 here) that the closer we move the "legitimate sale" price to the "Kazaa price," (which is not free), the more legitimate copies will be sold and the fewer Kazaa copies will be created. Can this be proven in advance? No. Have other companies experienced increases in volume after reducing price? Please don't say no.
This is the "everyone is at heart a thief" hypothesis, which I choose to reject based on several decades living among these humans. I find that most of them are pretty decent. That's why I say that a Kazaa copy is not free. It has a psychological cost, at least to the person who is not by nature a thief. They know they're stealing. There is a non-zero cost to them every time they download a song. They may not even admit it... but it's there. So you don't really have to go to zero to beat Kazaa. You just have to get close to a person's "guilt point" and they will switch. |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.