XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: jimgysin@geemail.com
Frank Frank sent the following on 10/29/2009 11:24 AM:
> Jim Gysin wrote:
>> Frank Frank sent the following on 10/28/2009 3:46 AM:
>>> Jim Gysin wrote:
>>>> Anim8rFSK sent the following on 10/27/2009 12:15 AM:
>>>>> In article ,
>>>>> Jim Gysin wrote:
>>>>>> Anim8rFSK sent the following on 10/26/2009 4:17 PM:
>>>>>>> In article ,
>>>>>>> Jim Gysin wrote:
>>>>>>>> SFTV_troy sent the following on 10/25/2009 5:11 PM:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 25, 6:01 am, aemeijers wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Shrug. If they don't wanna sell, you have no right to buy. May be
>>>>>>>>>> annoying, but hardly evil, and they are well within their rights.
>>>>>>>>> The current 105 year span (likely to be expanded again by Disney
>>>>>>>>> lobbying) is ridiculous.
>>>>>>>> Why? Because it's not what you want?
>>>>>>> Yeah, I fail to see how society benefits by non creatives being
>>>>>>> able to steal other's work.
>>>>>> We probably both already know that it has nothing to do with
>>>>>> benefiting society and everything to do with benefiting the selfish
>>>>>> and self-serving SFTV_troys and Frank Franks of the world.
>>>>> Yep
>>>> Whatever allows them to sleep at night, I guess.
>>> Then you'd both be wrong. There is nothing self-serving about:
>>>
>>> 1. Wanting a market free of government interventions, such as
>>> state-granted and state-enforced monopolies.
>> There *is* no monopoly.
>
> Sure there is.
Only certain people are allowed to create music? Only certain people
are allowed to play and enjoy the music that they have obtained legally?
That's news to me.
>>> 2. Wanting goods to come from a competitive market, and to be
>>> able to obtain any desired good for at or not much above
>>> its marginal cost.
>> So you want a "competitive market," but you also want to dictate the
>> selling price?
>
> No, I want the market to dictate the selling price, while I also note
> that an unrestrained free market drives prices down to marginal cost.
> (There are ways around that -- segmenting the market, etc. -- just ask
> Dasani. But the product is always available at or near marginal cost in
> some form.
This is *exactly* my point. In. Some. Form. In other words, if you
don't want to pay a higher price for a Cutter and Buck shirt, you can
buy a cheaper one at Penney's or Wal-Mart. If you don't want to pay for
copyrighted music, then you can listen to music that isn't copyrighted,
or you can listen to copyrighted music through an agent that has the
legal right to play the music. But you can't *steal* a shirt from
anyone and maintain that moral purity that you pretend to have, and you
can't *possess* music that you haven't bought fair and square. As such,
there is *no* monopoly on enjoying music; there are simply restraints
against possessing *some* music illegally.
At best, your "it's a monopoly on music" argument boils down to a "C&B
won't sell me their shirt at a price I want to pay" complaint.
> So I'd have no need to dictate the price. It would go where I
> want it to go all on its own courtesy of the invisible hand.)
And when it doesn't, you just obtain it illegally. I get it, really.
But you're not urinating on the Constitution, or anything.
>>> 3. Wanting the freedom to build upon our shared culture
>> Yes, "shared" as in "you share what you can do with me, while I give you
>> nothing in return because I just downloaded a free copy of your song or
>> movie."
>
> If I download a song, the only marginal additional resources consumed on
> my behalf were a mixture of mine, the person's who uploaded it to me,
> and some ISPs. Assuming we both pay our ISP bills on time, the only
> remaining compensation that might be needed is from me to the uploader.
> But in a typical filesharing transaction the uploader chose of their own
> volition to provide the upload at no charge.
You can prattle on and on about your marginal this and that all you
want, but it doesn't matter. Do you understand? It. Just. Doesn't.
Matter. All that matters is the terms by which the creator of the song
makes the song available for those who want access to that song. And if
one of the terms is that legitimate owners don't make the song available
for free to marginal cost cheap asses like you, then they are breaking
that agreement if they allow you to download a copy from them.
And you're breaking the law, too. Feel free to deny it, though, it if
helps you to sleep at night. Think of marginal costs, and all that.
> In particular, the song's original author has nothing to do with it,
> since they are not a party to the transaction and perform no marginal
> work in connection with it.
Of course they're not a party to the transaction, as it's an
unauthorized (by them) and *illegal* transaction. But you're
conveniently ignoring the fact that, at some point upstream of all of
the cheap asses, *someone* most likely made a legal purchase of the
song, and part of that purchase was an agreement to *not* fileshare the
song.
So while the song's creator is not party to the subsequent illegal
transaction, he is certainly a victim of it.
> If I resell a chair I bought, the carpenter that hammered it together
> likewise is not a party to the transaction, having performed no
> additional work in connection with the resale.
Back to vocabulary class yet again. This time, compare "creator" with
"hammerer."
>>> without fear of stupid lawsuits; culture itself is being
>>> carved up into fenced-off fiefdoms by these corporate
>>> bullies.
>> The "bullies" are not stopping you or anyone else from being creative.
>
> No, just stopping us from sharing certain results of such creativity,
> and from enjoying the fruits of theirs at marginal cost.
Which you seem to think that you have some inherent right to. And for
free, no less. (Spare me the marginal cost nonsense.) Guess what,
Seamus? You don't. I hate to break it to you, but it's not all about you.
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
