Interesting People mailing list archives
Four on ( a real student speaks) Does File Trading FundTerrorism?
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:57:02 -0500
------ Forwarded Message From: "Paul E. Robichaux" <paul () robichaux net> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:54:52 -0500 To: dave () farber net Subject: **SPAM** RE: [IP] ( a real student speaks) Does File Trading FundTerrorism? Mary Shaw makes an excellent point: Rep. Carter's plan is a terrible idea. Having said that, Mr. Papadoupoulous' argument can be summarized thusly: "If you copy something that you wouldn't have otherwise paid for, it's not stealing. Even if it harms someone, if it's for the entertainment of the general population, it's OK." Even by the standards of dorm-room bull sessions, this is an unusually puerile argument that completely ignores the legitimate interests of those who create entertainment or information content. The existing distribution model is clearly broken wrt what consumers really want, and the RIAA & MPAA are behaving inexcusably-- but two wrongs don't make a right. If you want to swap copyrighted materials, fine, go ahead, but don't attempt to cloak it in the mantle of social improvement for hoi polloi. Call it what it is: taking what doesn't belong to you. ------ End of Forwarded Message ------ Forwarded Message From: Alexandros Papadopoulos <apapadop () cmu edu> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:39:07 -0500 To: paul () robichaux net Cc: dave () farber net Subject: Re: FW: **SPAM** RE: [IP] ( a real student speaks) Does File Trading FundTerrorism? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 14 March 2003 15:00, you wrote:
------ Forwarded Message From: "Paul E. Robichaux" <paul () robichaux net> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:54:52 -0500 To: dave () farber net Subject: **SPAM** RE: [IP] ( a real student speaks) Does File Trading FundTerrorism? Mary Shaw makes an excellent point: Rep. Carter's plan is a terrible idea. Having said that, Mr. Papadoupoulous' argument can be summarized thusly: "If you copy something that you wouldn't have otherwise paid for, it's not stealing. Even if it harms someone, if it's for the entertainment of the general population, it's OK."
You're over-simplifying the situation. My stand is that corporations don't loose anything but their (already excessive) power, while society greatly benefits. This may sound simple-minded when applied to DVDs and music, but books and software are more air-tight examples of material that is copyrighted and given out at the highest possible price to consumers. The current system creates poor artists (authors, musicians, actors, programmers), poor consumers, and rich middlemen (RIAA, MPAA). This is a highly inefficient model, as you acknowledge, and it's only getting worse (think e-books, software lock-in). Consumers are being exploited.
Even by the standards of dorm-room bull sessions, this is an unusually puerile argument that completely ignores the legitimate interests of those who create entertainment or information content. The existing distribution model is clearly broken wrt what consumers really want, and the RIAA & MPAA are behaving inexcusably-- but two wrongs don't make a right.
So you're saying that by ripping a DVD I'm depriving the artists that were involved of their rightful returns? I would invite you to skim through the Courtley Love article, consider the economics of creative work production and distributions (I claim insider knowledge here, as my father is a book publisher), and reconsider. My argument is not "screw the suits", as you imply. It's not "getting back at them". I'm just screaming murder against this amazing propaganda that equates people who share material, with blood-thirsty pirates (or, in the spirit of the times, terrorists). Unless a distribution method that doesn't add 400% of costs that "get passed on" to the consumer prevails, forcing people to buy their own copy of every copyrighted material is wrong. The money doesn't go to the artist/producer, it goes to the distributor, that exploits both ends.
If you want to swap copyrighted materials, fine, go ahead, but don't attempt to cloak it in the mantle of social improvement for hoi polloi. Call it what it is: taking what doesn't belong to you.
"Copyrighted material" does not mean "properly copyrighted material". Copyright was supposed to protect artists. It was never meant to extend the monopoly power of corporations. With the recent ruthless policy of "copyright managers" (RIAA, MPAA etc), that clearly demonstrates their intent of holding copyright forever (Sonny Bono Act), I have to wonder why would anyone stand up to their interests. They are as blunt as it gets about manipulating anything that can be copyrighted. What do we have to gain from that? - -A - -- http://andrew.cmu.edu/~apapadop/pub_key.asc 3DAD 8435 DB52 F17B 640F D78C 8260 0CC1 0B75 8265 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+cloLgmAMwQt1gmURAvILAJ49rCoNSFni8CqnsctF8TiwRajluACfXg09 J+F3cSJZnjPdsiRCm54cNR0= =9AN8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------ End of Forwarded Message ------ Forwarded Message From: "J. Paul Reed" <preed () sigkill com> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:38:17 -0800 To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>, Alexandros Papadopoulos <apapadop () cmu edu> Subject: A real student responds to a "real student", re: Does File Trading Fund Terrorism? On 14 Mar 2003 at 14:33:37, Dave Farber moved bits on my disk to say:
A student participating in file swapping is not "stealing" DVDs. Calling file swapping "stealing" relies on the premise that the student would shell out the $$$ to buy the DVD, if the material was not available for free. This is a big assumption, usually not true.
Yes, they are stealing. Your claim that an assumption that students would purchase the DVD is a necessary condition to prove that they're committing theft is wrong; in reality, that assumption is only necessary to believe the industry's amorphous claims of "lost profits." But students *are* breaking the law and they *are* stealing intellectual property. As a student about to graduate myself, I'm appalled at the number of (often computer science) students who pirate music, DVDs, and *software*, and completely ignore the fact that they're shooting the industry they expect to give them a job in a few short years in the head. One need look only to countries like China to see what rampant piracy will do for the industries that rely on intellectual property, like software development. Students seem to think it's OK to pirate this material (and clog networks often paid for by taxpayers while they're doing it) but if you ask them if it would be acceptable to pirate software *they* had written, not only do they change their tune, the scary part is they HAVE NOT EVEN CONSIDERED THAT.
To draw a parallelism to this, I occasionally read the newspapers my father buys, but I wouldn't buy one of my own. So, am I a "pirate" for not buying a copy of my own and reading his newspapers [0]?
This is a horrid analogy. I don't think anyone in the movie, music, or software industry is claiming you're a "pirate" for going over to your Dad's house and watching a DVD or listening to a CD of his. This argument that "Well, it's OK to pirate material because I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is bogus. If you can't afford a piece of software, you shouldn't be using it. Period. Same thing goes for DVDs and music. Don't get me wrong: I think Valenti is as crazy and anti-consumer as the next guy (especially with claims like this), and I *don't* support all of these DRM plans from Microsoft, Intel, and Hollywood to make it so I can't even watch a DVD in my own house without having Hollywood "approve" it. But has ANYONE considered that maybe the reason these companies are going overboard with marketing and lobbying and trying to build technology that strangles consumer choice is because they're afraid--and often rightly so--of this "young generation's" attitude--your attitude--that music, DVD, and software are all "free" and "if I can't afford it... well... I'll just copy it and no one's harmed?" People are harmed. And if you're having trouble finding a job right now, like I am, you'll know exactly who's harmed. Maybe if the younger consumer market--students included--showed some maturity in the way they used technology, $MEGACORP wouldn't be so inflexible about releasing intellectual property. Because this is IP, I'll include an interesting article Robert Cringely wrote that covers some of these issues in regards to music and movies; note, though, that it doesn't advocate this attitude that *theft* "is OK": http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20021128.html Later, Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------ J. Paul Reed -- 0xDF8708F8 || preed () sigkill com || web.sigkill.com/preed To hold on to sanity too tight is insane. -- Nick Falzone, Pushing Tin I use PGP; you should use PGP too... if only to piss off John Ashcroft ------ End of Forwarded Message ------ Forwarded Message From: Scott Moskowitz <scott () bluespike com> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:20:26 -0500 To: David Farber <dave () farber net> Subject: Re: [IP] MUST READ Courtney Love does the math The controversial singer takes on record label profits, Napster and "sucka VCs. On 3/14/03 4:03 PM, "Dave Farber" <dave () farber net> wrote:
This is an intreging article that explores the economics of the record industry. It is a must read. Dave Courtney Love does the math The controversial singer takes on record label profits, Napster and "sucka VCs."
Dave: Too bad there has yet to be a Charlie Chaplin and his United Artists effort for the music space. Courtney's article is very relevant and more so now that the trading of music is so pervasive. Great choice for IP! Sincerely, Scott ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- Four on ( a real student speaks) Does File Trading FundTerrorism? Dave Farber (Mar 14)