XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: jimgysin@geemail.com   
      
   Frank Frank sent the following on 10/29/2009 10:57 AM:   
   > Jim Gysin wrote:   
   >> Frank Frank sent the following on 10/28/2009 3:24 AM:   
   >>> Jim Gysin wrote:   
   >>>> Frank Frank sent the following on 10/26/2009 12:47 AM:   
   >>>>> Jim Gysin wrote:   
   >>>>>> Frank Frank sent the following on 10/25/2009 7:03 AM:   
   >>>>>>> No thanks to their monopoly. If one business isn't willing to   
   >>>>>>> manufacture and sell wibbles, I should have the option of buying   
   >>>>>>> wibbles from another business, really.   
   >>>>>> Why?   
   >>>>> It's called "capitalism". If you don't get it, then feel free to   
   >>>>> move to China, Cuba, or North Korea.   
   >>>> The last time I looked, capitalism was a voluntary arrangement on   
   >>>> *both* sides.   
   >>> I don't disagree.   
   >> And yet you advocate various forms of thuggery and theft to get what you   
   >> want for a price that the seller would otherwise be unwilling to accept.   
   >   
   > I do not.   
   >   
   > If I fileshare an MGM movie, downloading a copy from John Q. Public,   
   > that's not "thuggery and theft". That's a consensual free-market   
   > transaction between me and John.   
      
   Unless John has legal permission to allow you to make a copy of it, it's   
   illegal, and it's theft in every moral sense of the word.  It really   
   *is* that simple, Seamus.   
      
   > If MGM uses copyright law to forbid me and John from engaging in that   
   > transaction, though, then THAT is thuggery, with government complicity   
   > in the thuggery.   
      
   No, it would only be thuggery if MGM forced John to agree to MGM's   
   purchasing terms in the first place as it concurrently forced John to   
   buy a copy of the movie against John's wishes.  But unless I'm mistaken   
   here, MGM is not forcing John to buy anything from them.   
      
   Let me try to make it simple for you.  John is free to buy the movie, or   
   to not buy the movie on MGM's terms.  If he chooses to buy the movie,   
   then he has to honor those terms.  And if one of the terms is that he   
   *not* fileshare that movie with you, then John should not fileshare the   
   movie with you.  His only alternative is to not buy the movie.   
      
   The End.   
      
   >>> But you restraining trade by other businesses is not capitalism; it's   
   >>> monopoly.   
   >> I'm not restraining trade   
   >   
   > Sure you are. See above.   
      
   I think I see the problem here.  When I say "I'm not restraining trade,"   
   I mean "I'm not restraining free and legal and mutually-agreeable   
   trade."  I had assumed that this was obvious, but perhaps I'm being too   
   generous here.  But now you have me wondering if you would also be   
   willing to try to advance the argument that laws against burglary are   
   another example of "restraining trade."   
      
   --   
   Jim Gysin   
   Waukesha, WI   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)