 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to DaMaGeINC
Re: P2P = Achilles' heel of the interweb Now that was a constructive post, DaMaGeINC  !
Have you seen Iron Man? Take a look at the credits. That's the number of people that are -slightly- impacted every time someone downloads a copy of the movie instead of paying to see it.
In my mind, I can't work out the idea of never paying for a CD or DVD as the right thing to do.
Downloading it after I bought the DVD because I'd rather store it on a hard drive? whether illegal or legal, certainly nobody is harmed
Downloading it to see if I want to buy it and really, truly deleting it afterward? whether illegal or legal, certainly nobody is harmed
to BF69,
These are the nuances that don't work with actual physical property. That's why it isn't the same as stealing. Obtaining something through stealing deprives a victim of that very same something.
I thought you were on a pretty good track yourself when you started talking about swiping the CD from Wal-Mart, but then you took a different direction. Taking a CD from Wal-Mart is stealing.
Perhaps people don't know how copyright licensing works. To press a CD or DVD, you have to license the art and then you can only press the number of copies of which you have "mechanical license" to press. So the artists are paid even though the CD or DVD hasn't reached consumers yet. Now if some of those CDs or DVDs get stolen, that's an actual real-money hard loss.
If someone downloads those same (10-12?) tracks from the Internet, there is an uncertain loss because that downloader may or may not have purchased a licensed copy of the art if it wasn't available for download.
And there's another nuance when someone downloads the art and then presses a CD/DVD and sells it. That is definitely a lost sale because a willing buyer did exist.
So to wrap all of the above under the banner of "stealing" might be well intended, but maybe it has the opposite effect than you hope for. It is not only inaccurate, it's hype and actually makes it less likely you're going to convince someone that what they're doing has negative impacts.
And no matter what the law actually is (other than "terrible" and "broken"), the impacts are the reasons for the law and to support the advancement of future arts and related sciences are still good reasons.
And if the current set of laws have been broken by advancements in technology or changes in contemporary values, then the laws ought to be changed. But while they're still the laws, then the laws generally should be obeyed.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
