>>>>> "R" == Russell McOrmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
R> Many of the supposedly 'illegal' forms of file sharing, such as
R> copyright music, are not illegal in all countries. In Canada
R> the private copying of music is already paid for with the
R> Private Copying tax and thus is legal.
Only with regard to the media of magnetic tape. There is no tax (yet)
on digital media.
R> The assumption that "a copy made is one less copy paid for" is
R> also a bogus statement.
No, it is valid. In analog days, the copy was less perfect and thus
you could not copy copies of copies; the trading was self-limiting.
Digital copies are not copies, they are indistinguishable from the
original. They /are/ the original (in the Andy Warhol sense) and so
therefore, without qualification, the copy is a sale not made: If you
have Eminem on your HD, there is _zero_ reason to buy the CD, you
will get identically the same product.
The question is not that the copy is a lost sale. The question is
whether or not that sale is /important/ --- if your pet artist
generates 9000% more income, does it matter if bootlegging of their
material is up 500%? No, it doesn't. That's the _crux_ of this issue.
By all accounts, free file trading is _good_ for the artists, it's
good for culture in general, and if they weren't so bleedin' dense,
the RIAA members would see that it is good for them too. Instead,
they are letting bean-counters and lawyers make their policies, so
they get what they deserve, and because we're hooked on their junk, we
get what we deserve too (although I /like/ Eminem, I won't die if I
never hear him again)
FWIW, back in the 80's we did a /lot/ of illegal file trading over FTP
connections; one of my employers even (unknowingly) hosted one of the
world's pre-eminent collections of digitally bootlegged porn flicks.
--
Gary Lawrence Murphy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - TeleDynamics Communications
- blog: http://www.auracom.com/~teledyn - biz: http://teledyn.com/ -
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." (Picasso)
