thank you jeff
Jeff/Ninja Tune wrote:
quoted 73 lines Look the way I see it, if someone spends money to create something and they> 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
>
> > 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org