RIAA gets snubbed.
- Thread starter ByteMe
- Start date
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
CorwinB said:Go go thieves !!!
It's always a great thing when what amounts to digital shoplifting done by whiney spoiled brats is able to mascarade as a fight for individual freedoms against big bad corporations...
I think the point is that the courts decided that the RIAA have to go through due process - they can't just quote DCMA and do a quick end run around the privacy laws.
Don't get me wrong, that's great and I'm glad that due process has to play its role. IMHO, it's better to left guilty people unpunished than to break due process in order to catch them, because however well-meant the first breach is done, others are absolutely bound to follow...
You see, I'm as selfish as the next guy, and my main problem with DMCA, DRM and all that stuff is that I buy all the content I use (games, music, software, movies...), and because some spoiled brat the next block thinks he's entitled all of this for free, securities are put in place that force me to engage in exactly the same behavior as said kid, for example when I have to endure porn pop-ups and look for a no-CD crack for software because my CD-drive won't read the protected content I bought... Or when I won't be able to rip and resize a DVD I bought so I can watch it on my PDA during trips...
Meanwhile, the spoiled brat poses as some fighter for individual liberties or some nonsense like that. The truth is and has always been that this is total hypocrisy : the spoiled brat doesn't give a rat's backside about fighting big corporations or improving the bottom line for creative artists. He just think that he can act as greedily as he wants because no one will be able to catch him...
You see, back in Napster V1 days, those P2P users were not complaining about the artist's right to better deals from majors : all they whined about was that on a 12-tracks CD you would typically have 10 garbage tracks and that it was unfair to have to pay the full CD. Now that iTunes, Napster V2... came with ways to get the content you want for a decent price more easily than with Kazaa (I mean, 1$/track sounds pretty decent to me considering you only buy the tracks you want), the motives change, and now they are stealing copyrighted work to help the artists. Yeah right.
For me, Kazaa is digital shoplifting, a petty offense done when you think nobody can see you. And I've a very hard time seeing individual liberties defenders in kids stealing candies from big stores...
Of course, one could put it that way, though there are many that seek music over the internet that is either a.) not distributed in their own country, b.) overpriced thanks to various factors c.) simply not available because it's a niche market. Not all that use said P2P programs are that evil or greedy as you put it... perhaps one could also argue "cause and effect". Many see the arise of P2P and piracy as the effect of over priced products... Personally, I'm not defending either, though I certainly see faults on both side.
To me, this is certainly good news.
Actually, "warezing" music is not the same as shop lifting CDs.
Theft has two components:
1. The thief directly de-riches the owner of an object by unlawfully taking possession of the object.
2. The thief thereby en-riches himself.
Nr. 1 does not apply when downloading music. The victim suffers no direct damage, only potential indirect damage by not being able to realise profit from his IP in that particular case. The point is, that one cannot assume that profits in that case would have been realised if the infringement of IP did not happen.
That does not mean it's ok to illegally DL music but it does make the offense less severe than stealing.
Besides, the music industry fucked up all by its own. I seriously doubt that music sales would skyrocket again even if there was some magic wand solution to prevent all illegal copying from happening.
Theft has two components:
1. The thief directly de-riches the owner of an object by unlawfully taking possession of the object.
2. The thief thereby en-riches himself.
Nr. 1 does not apply when downloading music. The victim suffers no direct damage, only potential indirect damage by not being able to realise profit from his IP in that particular case. The point is, that one cannot assume that profits in that case would have been realised if the infringement of IP did not happen.
That does not mean it's ok to illegally DL music but it does make the offense less severe than stealing.
Besides, the music industry fucked up all by its own. I seriously doubt that music sales would skyrocket again even if there was some magic wand solution to prevent all illegal copying from happening.
