Seth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>An ignorant list member wrote:
and
>If I were to interpret the law as you and the
>other idiots on the list suggest
and
>The AHRA protects the consumers and the manufacters
>from the legal idiots like yourself
and
>Perhaps some of you need to grow up
The rest of the list seems to be able to discuss this like adults. You're
acting like a real jerk to people who happen to disagree with you. As
Eric pointed out, we're never going to all agree on the ethics of this
matter. We can discuss the legalities involved, but even then it is open
to interpretation. So to start calling people who disagree with you
"idiots" and "ignorant" is simply childish and will never convince anyone
that you're more "right" than them. In fact, it most likely has the
opposite effect.
Now, back to our regularly-scheduled civil discussion:
>What I really don't understand here is why some
>of the people on the list are near militant over
>preventing me and other people from using stuff they
>bought... You're not losing money over this, heck no
>one is losing money over this.
Legal issues aside, you're wrong about this. People *are* losing money.
If you record a friend's CD onto an MD, you're getting the album for
free. Forget about the record company for a minute: the *artist* is
losing money. The "fine" you keep ranting about is completely irrelevant
because even when a fee is included in the cost of a MiniDisc, the artist
whose album you just copied will never see the money. So people *are*
clearly losing.
As to why other people feel differently than you, I know I personally
make income from computer software. When people copy it they are stealing
my hard work. If I made music instead of computer software, the situation
would be much the same: whenever someone copied my album without paying
for it, they would be stealing from me and my hard work. It doesn't
appear that you have ever created a product that is license-based and
that people can easily copy/pirate/steal. If you had, you might feel
differently (and I promise none of us would call you an "idiot" ;-) ).
>Congress has done studies that are at worst inconclusive, but
>more realisticly seem to indicate that casual copying of music
>helps CD sales rather than hurting it.
I'd be very interested in seeing the text of these "studies."
>I bet not one of you has a vested interest in the copying of
>music, but yet you will defend the record company's bottom line
>as if it were your very own.
Not a single person on this list has bemoaned the money the record
companies are losing. Everyone who has taken a position opposite of yours
has cited the *artists* who make the music. I don't give a damn if the
record companies lose money, but I do care if the people actually making
the music aren't paid.
>Perhaps some of you need to grow up and accept that
>reguardless of whether what I do is legal or not (and
>believe me it is legal) it isn't your place to try to
>make hold to your beliefs or your job to enforce them
>on me. That is the job of our government, not you.
>Perhaps you should leave the enforcement of the laws
>to the government.
No one started this discussion to tell you how to live your life. This
whole issue came up because someone asked if recording CDs owned by
someone else is illegal. People have been discussing that. If you don't
want to take part in that discussion, or if you think that you're so
utterly superiour and the rest of are "idiots," than maybe you don't
really want to be part of this list, because healthy (and *civil*) debate
of recording laws and ethics are central to the whole idea of digital
recording.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
