Look the way I see it, if someone spends money to create something and they
put it in the marketplace to profit from that creation then anything that
doesn't involve the exchange of money for it qualifies as a form of
stealing. If they wanted to give it away for free then it should be their
choice as to whether they want to do so, not arbitrarily decided by people
with access to the ability to do so.
I'm not going to get all heavy about it as I see all sorts of negative and
positive aspects to file sharing/swapping (mostly positive at this
particular juncture of its history), but can we at least admit that when one
obtains something for free when that thing exists in the physical realm with
a price tag attached then it technically is stealing.
And yes copyright laws were made by the people standing to benefit from
them, but then murder laws were presumably made by the people who didn't
want to be murdered, and that whole allowing woman to vote law was probably
made by some woman who wanted to vote....
Jeff
quoted 49 lines From: "pixilated" <pixilated@alum.dartmouth.org>> From: "pixilated" <pixilated@alum.dartmouth.org>
> Organization: Dartmouth College
> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:15:04 -0500
> To: idm@hyperreal.org
> Subject: RE: [idm] Indie Ethics
>
> Sure, it's theft if that is what the law says theft is. That doesn't
> mean that the law isn't a sham supported by parties trying to influence
> how the law is written and applied for their own benefit. You are taking
> for granted the concept of intellectual property. Copyright laws didn't
> even exist until a few centuries ago. Do you honestly see no difference
> between appropriating a physical object claimed by someone else and an
> idea? How did any artist create his work? You think he hasn't
> appropriated the ideas of others? You are accepting a construction of
> reality imposed upon you without criticism. Way to go, sucker. I should
> copyright intelligence and sell it. God knows I'd make a shitload of
> money off you.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Hager [mailto:HagerJW@Healthall.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 5:03 PM
> To: idm@hyperreal.org
> Subject: Re: [idm] Indie Ethics
>
>
>
> oh for chist sake
> pirating, file sharing, downloading, swapping
> who gives a flying f**k what the RIAA calls it...
> if it's not properly authorized, it's STEALING,
> PERIOD! it doesn't matter if it's greedy, rich, butt-heads
> like Metallica, or some starving indie artist.
>
> pirate, according to Webster's, by definition means:
>
> One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without
> authorization.
>
> which accurately describes the unlicenced manufacture of hit records for
> retail AND mp3 sharing/downloading.
>
> john
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org