(no subject)

From: Paul Berger <sanepsycho_at_globaldialog.com>
Date: Fri Jan 17 21:13:00 2003

On Fri, 2003-01-17 at 12:41, Marvin Johnston wrote:
> 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.

Your using improper terminology ... it's not theft or piracy, it's
copyright infringement ... you have been listening to the copyright
cartel.

I could never see what copying a disk had to do with boarding a ship,
raping & killing the passengers & crew and then sinking the ship. ;^)

In case your wondering I'm not some '1337 warez dude, what commercial
software I have is fully licensed thank you.

Regards,
Paul
Received on Fri Jan 17 2003 - 21:13:00 GMT