Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: No Subject

From: Jan Depner <eviltwin69@email-addr-hidden>
Date: Thu Feb 23 2006 - 05:24:43 EET

On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 06:14 +0000, peter wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 20:03 -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 17:23 -0800, Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
> > >
> > > But why do you consider it stealing?
> > I just can't resist this. Please send me a copy of your latest
> > song, novel, whatever. I'll post it on the internet with my name as
> > author then we'll come back to this discussion of why Lee and I think
> > that copyright infringement is stealing. Is this really that difficult
> > to understand???
> to be fair, you are now talking about plagiarism, which encompasses and
> surpasses copyright infringement. falsely claiming to be the author
> of someone elses work for some definable gain is not what Kjetil is
> talking about.

    Wrong. Legally, without copyright there is no plagiarism (morally
there is). If you do not copyright and you place in the public domain I
can do anything I want with what you have written. But even excepting
that, how about I don't put my name on it but Britney Spears (gag) likes
it and makes it her latest hit and she rakes in a couple of million on
it. Sorry, no copyright, no money. Is this not theft of the most
heinous sort?

> <opinion>
> Personally, i would define theft as when someone takes something from
> the owner of that item so that the owner no longer has it.
> as such, there is a quantifiable difference in the respective outcomes
> of copyright infringement and theft. which is probably why they called
> it copyright infringement and not simply theft.
> in cases of copyright infringement, the owner loses the chance to gain.
> in instances of theft, the owner is guaranteed a loss.
> so imo, the distinction between the two terms is merited for
> quantifiable reasons and stealing is on balance, more serious than
> copyright infringement. (i'm not talking about counterfitting either)
> <opinion/>
> i have a question for you though, would you take widespread copyright
> infringement over pervasive DRM (and it's associated outcomes)?
> it's a moot question, we're gonna get DRM. but it's not a trick
> question. i'm genuinely interested to know your opinon on this as i see
> no other way for unit based sales of media to thrive without DRM.
> (assuming copyright infringement is such a serious problem that is)

    I really think that DRM is a dead issue. Media companies will place
it on their product, when the general unwashed public finds that they
can't play their CD/DVD/whatever wherever they feel like there will be a
huge backlash. These companies cannot piss off their customers too much
without losing them. Historically this has always been the case with
disruptive technologies. Check out the history of Henry Ford and the
patents on automobile engines (including lawsuits of Ford customers over
patent infringement in their Ford motors).

Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner
The Fuzzy Dice
"As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be 
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and 
this we should do freely and generously."
Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of 
Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744
Received on Sun Feb 26 20:19:42 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 26 2006 - 20:19:42 EET