(no subject)

From: Marvin Johnston <marvin_at_rain.org>
Date: Fri Jan 17 12:41:55 2003

Dan Wright wrote:
> 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).

The theft argument assumes *ONLY* that someone is taking something that
doesn't belong to them without paying for it. Rationalizing theft by
saying that copy wouldn't have been bought anyway has no bearing on the
fact that it is *theft*. The "no lost sales" argument (probably on both
sides of the issue) is just a tangent. The same arguments have been made
for stealing software.
Received on Fri Jan 17 2003 - 12:41:55 GMT

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