On Wednesday 10 September 2003 11:10 am, Networks East wrote: > Let me first say that I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE MUSIC INDUSTRY. And I think > it is terrible that they are picking on children.
For myself, I think it is terrible that they feel litigation is the only way to deal with a new business model created by technology. Much like a horse-whip manufacturer suing automobile buyers because they can't figure out a way to make money off of cars. Originally, the idea in the US was that you went to battle in the market-place and the best idea wins. Not that you use the legal system to stifle all other ideas and try to win by litigation. Regardless, the current policies of the recording industry are the desperate flailing of a drowning industry. They probably will change the current face of file-sharing, no doubt about that. By opposing it the way that they are, they will drive it underground, even more out of their control and any hope to convert it into some type of system that would have been profitable to the artist and industry will be lost. As the usual morality play goes, their own greed will be their downfall. As the luddites learned, you can destroy the machines in a factory but you can't stop the progress of time. > But I have been saying all along that "FILE SHARING IS ILLEGAL" Before you > start flaming me, please read the entire message. > > Copyright laws exist for a reason, to prevent someone from stealing your > product. When you participate in file sharing, you are STEALING. It does > not matter that the music industries prices are highway robery, taking > somthing that you have no legal right to is stealing. No different that > walking into your local store and stealing the cd off the shelf. As a > computer technician, I see my fair share of "stolen software" mostly > win_slows. Anyway I tell these people about Linux. That they can use the > FREE SOFTWARE and not break the law. Some opt for it, some dont. However > I WILL NOT install or service their pirated software. Keep in mind that copyright laws exist to encourage the production and distribution of goods that are so protected. They were not created as a tool that corporations could use to control and prosecute people who refused to knuckle under to their illegal cartel. In the US, at least, there is a concept of "unclean hands." Meaning, if you try to sue someone in court for violating laws or interfering with you, you can not prevail if it is found that you were also violating laws or interfering with others. I do not think that anyone can possibly argue that the RIAA has clean hands. Period. The recording industry was operating an illegal cartel and fixing prices of CD's for decades. They have also acted to illegally close distribution channels, stop artists from making their own deals for digital distribution and they have been instrumental in lobbying for changes to the law that were intended solely to benefit them and deprive artists and creators of music of their rights. If the complaints about file-sharing were coming from a cleaner source, I might be more inclined to show some concern, as it is, I am not. Much like Microsoft complaining about unfair competition, in essence, it is laughable. As for artists, those that create value for their fans, those that trust their fans to support them and provide some real avenue to meet the needs of their fans will profit by them, those that do not trust their fans, don't provide value, and want to dictate to them what they will get and in what form, will lose. File sharing may be one means for this, but there would be others if it disappeared tomorrow. That was the lesson that I took from Napster, pity that others didn't learn it as well. ...snipped > Some listen, some don't. > > Anyway. If the record industry is unable to sell CD's, the price will come > down. Simple Economics 101. (Yes I went to college "Business > Admin/Information Systems and a Minor in Spanish) Supply and Demand. If > they have tons of CD's that they cant sell, because people will not buy > them THEY WILL LOWER THEIR PRICES. Simple Economics is not so simple when you have collusion and exclusive licensing and contracts. Throw in using the legal system to stifle rights, fair use and competition and economics can get very complex, quickly. You might want to look in to supply and demand as it relates to diamonds via deBeers cartel, or oil via OPEC or even software prices via Microsoft. Hell, just consider the current SCO case against Linux. Is that about encouraging production and sharing of ideas? Or trying to find a new way to squeeze a profit out of a very bad investment. Intellectual property laws are a man-made and government enforced creation, not a natural law. At the point that those laws cease to be a benefit to the public, they are used to stifle, rather than encourage creation, they are used to control, rather than encourage distribution, then they no longer serve their original purpose and should be done away with. Personally, I think that the easiest way to deal with such abuses is to simply withdraw government protection to any person or industry found to be violating free trade laws. RIAA setting up price-fixing, no more copyright. Microsoft discouraging competition illegally, no more copyright. Patent holder suing others to discourage innovation without foundation and without a real case, no more patent. It only takes a couple of cases and all of the abuses of the intellectual property system will go away. No matter how you feel, this idea of supply and demand given the artificial construct of copyright, patent laws and litigation is much too simplistic to fully explain and deal with what is currently going on. > > Do I agree with what they are doing. NO > Do I agree with copyright laws, YES Perhaps originally. However, if you look carefully, you will note that songs and music are classified as works for hire, they do not belong to the original artists but to the record companies. Still agree with them? And copyright, which was limited when first approved by Congress has been constantly expanded since that time at the request of media holders and conglomerates. Do I agree with current copyright laws? NO. > In the United States we have choices. The way to change these things is to > contact your US Congressman. Express your opinion STRONGLY. Remember the > US Constitution allows us to REPLACE our entire government every 4 years in > a peaceful manner. All we have to do is VOTE. > > Keep that in mind. Let the flames begin. If you think that your opinion matters as much as a lobbyist working for a 50Billion dollar a year industry to a congressman, well, I guess there is just no further point of discussion. I won't post again on this subject, I do understand it is off-topic for the list but just don't like pronouncing simple answers for very complex issues to go unchallenged. Whatever we can say about the current debate over file-sharing, it is not a black and white issue. -- Bryan Phinney Software Test Engineer
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
