On 10/30/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 30/10/2007, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dave doesn't mean sharing. Dave means stealing and redistributing > > > > for free. When he says sharing, Dave always means stealing. Dave > wants > > > > everything for nothing. > > > > > > This is simply untrue: non-commercial redistribution allow a lot of > > > scope for business, without trampling friendship, neighborlinesses and > > > community. > > > > But that's not what you advocate. > > I just said something, and you're telling me that is not what I am saying? > WTF?
You say it "allows a lot of scope for..." etc. But what you always bang on about when this subject comes up is your unalterable right to copy what you want, when you want. You don't say "you should be able to make limited 'fair use' copies for..." - no, you repeatedly state that it's your right to do anything you want with any creative material, and that the original creators have no moral right to deny you that. You then try and make it sound warm and fluffy by going on to state, with no justifiation, that giving away other people's creativity is one of the central tenets of friendship - and if anyone has the temerity to disagree, they're horrid, unfriendly people. > > You advocate the wholesale copying and > > redistributing, however and whenever you feel like it. Your arguments > have > > got absolutely nothing to do with neighbourliness and community, and > > everything to do with wanting to enjoy the fruits of someone elses work > > without giving anything in return. > > Magnatune.com dude. I'm not saying you *don't* ever buy music. Once you've bought it though - you want to copy it and give it to other people so they don't have to pay for it. > > > Usually when I say free, I am referring to freedom, not price. > > > > That's rubbish. Utter, utter rubbish. > > The last 6 months or so I have been _very_ careful to say "zero price" > when I mean free-as-in-beer. Toss. It's about money pure and simple. You might have convinced yourself that it's not - but when it boils down to it, you want to be able to pirate music and flms so you or your mates don't have to pay for them. > > You copy a CD and give it to your > > mate, that's all about money > > No, its about friendship. See? You're doing it again. > > or rather it's all about not wanting to pay > > money. Your friend may think that CD's overpriced and so wouldn't pay > the > > (say) ten quid asking price, but he wants it badly enough to get you to > copy > > it. For free. > > Perhaps he'll go to a gig by the band or send them money in some other > way, and there is nothing stopping anyone from doing that. But now it > is possible to make copies of digitally encoded information for > friends, that is now a basic aspect of friendship. Prince, Radiohead, > and many up-and-coming bands, understand this. The writing has been on > the wall for over a decade. If you were talking about making up mixtapes, or burning a couple of tracks to a CD and say "listen to this - it's fantastic, you should go and get the album", I'd say you have a point. But you're not. You're suggesting that everyone has the right to copy anything and everything, when, how and where they like, not for personal backups, or to play in the car when they've got the CD at home, or to get their mates into their new favourite band, but to give to their friends so they can avoid paying any money for it. Prince and Radiohead can afford to "give" away their music (they still got paid for it, don't forget) - and it's their choice. I have no problem if you want to copy any of the music on my band's site and give it to your mates either, but I'm not a struggling band trying to make a living from it. If I was, and I chose not to grant you that right, that's my perogative. The business model of the music business *is* changing, you're quite right, but that doesn't automatically give you the right to take away one large proportion of a band's income. Of course one copy doesn't equal one lost sale - that's a specious argument - but it *does* equal one *potential* sale. Maybe ten illegal copies equate to one lost sale, maybe five copies do - but whatever the ratio, it's still going to be a loss of revenue, a proportion of which would've gone to the band. (Whether that proportion is 100% for a DIY indie band, or 5% for an Sony BMG slave, it doesn't matter. It's a loss of revenue.) > > It's not an intellectual freedom that you're arguing > > No, because that's to do with modification, which is only neccessary > for functional works, not artistic ones. Now you're grasping at straws / trying to derail the argument. A moral freedom / an intellectual freedom - whatever. You don't have that right. > it's > > a purely financial gain that you're after. He's quite likely to buy you > a > > beer, or fix your dripping tap for nothing at some point in the future. > > Right - other aspects of friendship. Or do you never buy friends beers > and charge them for fixing their taps? lol Of course I do (although I don't do plumbing) - but how many times have you copied a CD or DVD for someone and they've said "Thanks - I'll get you a pint for that"? You're getting personal gain on the back of someone else's creativity. > > Making a copy for your friend is not stealing. Thinking of information > > > as property i a mirage. > > > > You're talking out of your arse, parroting fashionable views you've read > > elsewhere without an original thought or point of view. Your real worry > is > > that if you have to pay for anything it'll affect the amount you can pay > > into your pension plan. > > I am paid more than average for people my age, and I have large > savings so I don't have to worry about money in any case. Why the > personal attacks Richard? Not a personal attack, believe me. It's just a way of pointing out that you get on this soapbox every time it's vaguely relevant, to try and justify your rampant piracy. You just don't want to pay for music / film - and I'd suggest one reason you have large savings is because you've got a huge collection of knock-off CDs, rather than ones you've paid for. If I'd not paid for any of the music I've got at home, I'd have large personal savings too. > Face it - you're just backing a system which ensures you can get the > maximum > > return for the least input - but you're telling yourself that you're a > > footsoldier in some imaginary intellectual war. Get over it and pay for > > stuff like everyone else. > > lol You laugh because you know I've just summed your position up in a couple of sentences. Rich.
