mailing list archives
Re: when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
From: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <thor () hammerofgod com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 02:16:45 +0000
From: full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk [mailto:full-disclosure-
bounces () lists grok org uk] On Behalf Of Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 4:06 PM
To: Michael Schmidt
Cc: full-disclosure () lists grok org uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:06:28 GMT, Michael Schmidt said:
You want to be very careful with that line of thought. You are taking
the creator the rightful owners profits, which they are entitled to if
it is a product they created to be sold.
You might want to go read "Courtney Love Does The Math", and then ask
yourself the following:
1) You can make a case that if you copy an album intead of buying it, you're
depriving somebody of profits. But what if it's an album that you would *not*
have bought at full price anyhow? Or one that you bought used (see "first
These arguments do more harm than good. You can't base property law on what people may not have done (of course there
are "not paid your taxes" etc - let's not get tied down with that). I'm actually surprised you made that comment. I
have a product that I own the rights to. If you don't feel like paying full price, then don't buy it. You go down the
street and buy a similar product for less money. That way I don't make money, and my competitor has. If this happens
enough, I go out of business as an effect of how the market works. But if you were not going to pay full price, that
doesn't give you any right to steal it. That is simply absurd.
Now, many in the music industry have openly stated (I've heard anyway) that internet piracy is good for business.
People hear music they wouldn't have heard, and buy the album. I've done this myself, and I agree with it. But whether
or not the behavior ends up benefiting the industry or not is irrelevant; I've still broken the law.
That's where is should end, but it doesn't. Sharing music not purchased is already illegal. The companies already
have legal remedies available. Unfortunately, the industry lobbyists have convinced lawmakers that the action already
being illegal isn't enough - they now want the legislative body to ENFORCE the law for them by giving execution rights
to the plaintiff. That is freaking nuts. What should happen is that those who do not innovate in music distribution
and rights management pay to see the legal process through. Then we're back to the first example where they would end
up spending too much money on legal fees and go out of business where the guys who figure out a cool DRM scheme for
sampling, sharing, etc end up making money, and the market takes care of its own.
It's far easier and cheaper to get inept and ignorant legislators to extend judgment into enforcement with new laws.
2) Who gets those profits, the artist, the label, or the RIAA? Are you stealing
profits from the artist, or are you stealing them from somebody else who was
attemting to steal them from the artist?
The fun begins when the record companies start sniping each other. Remember when The Verve got their pants sued of by
the Rolling Stones copyright holder for "Bittersweet Symphony"? It was a clean cut case of copyright infringement.
What if SOPA or the next round of it does pass - will ABKCO Records legally be able to get Hut Records entire web site
The main point here is that legal remedy for property rights already exists, and the holders of those rights should be
required to exercise due process just like everyone else.
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/