(no subject)

From: Dan Wright <dtwright_at_uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri Jan 17 12:16:01 2003

Megan said:
> Ah, but why are you taking a copy? Is it perhaps because it has
> value to you? That it entertains? If so, then someone had to
> go through the process of creation to produce it. Not unlike
> building a house. They deserve something to compensate them.

Yes, they do...but please see below...

> >that makes a copy of something *may* be depriving an author of possibly
> >income, but if someone is too cheap or really can't afford to buy it in
> >the first place, "lost income" is just BS.
> That seems to be the general argument of the recent and current
> generations... that just because they can't pay for something
> shouldn't preclude them having it... "they are entitled to it".
> WRONG! If it has value to you, then pay for it.

The problem is that the "theft" argument assumes that EVERY copy = 1 lost
sale. This argument is total bullshit. Most people who copy
music/movies/whatever wouldn't have bought it if they couldn't copy it, so no
(or at best, very few -- FAR fewer then the number of copies that are made)
actual SALES are lost. (If you don't believe me, there has been a lot of
statistical research done that shows this; about the only contradiction comes
from the RIAA's highly dubious closed-books "research". Sorry I don't have
any sources at hand, but it's easy to find them on the WWW.) No lost sales
means there's no equivalent to real-world theft, because no property is gone
(the author/copyright owner still has their copy) and no money has been lost
(because the copy wouldn't have been a sale, anyway).

- Dan Wright

-] ------------------------------ [-] -------------------------------- [-
``Weave a circle round him thrice, / And close your eyes with holy dread,
  For he on honeydew hath fed, / and drunk the milk of Paradise.''
       Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Kubla Khan
Received on Fri Jan 17 2003 - 12:16:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:36:01 BST