Re: OMG!

[russotto@wanda.pond.com (Matthew Russotto)]

In article <3b1463c3.203721292@news1.on.sympatico.ca>,
Jeff Blakeney <CUTjefbla@bconnex.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 May 2001 02:21:44 GMT, "**** ****" <***@***.com> wrote:
>
>The copyright holder should have $150 in his bank account (because
>there are three copies out there) but he only has $100.  The copyright
>holder has lost $50.
>
>Here is an analogy for you:
>
>I buy a cupcake directly from a baker for $.50, some else buys a
>cupcake directly from a baker for $.50, you come along and take a
>cupcake without paying for it.
>
>The baker should have $1.50 in his bank account (because there are
>three cupcakes out there) but he only has $1.00.  The baker has lost
>$.50.
>
>Please don't nit pick this to death.

Why not?  Because it will fall apart?

Here's another one for your:  The baker makes the three cupcakes.  At
the end of the day, he's sold two.   He tosses the third away unsold
(fortunately in a box).  I dig it out of the trash.  Has the baker
lost anything?
>
>There really is no difference between you making of copy of a
>copyrighted work or actually physically stealing an original copy of
>that work.

There is in fact an enormous difference.

>There is as much need for intellectual property law as there is for
>physical property law.  Property is property regardless of its
>tangibility.

On the contrary.  Real property and physical property both exist
regardless of the law.  Intellectual property is created by the law.

>The current implementation of intellectual property law may not be the
>best but it is what is currently in place.  It can be changed. 

It CAN be changed, but not by me; I can't afford enough politicians to
defeat Microsoft, the MPAA, and the RIAA.  That's all intellectual
property law is nowadays, a special interest of certain producers.
Remember back when they tried to get Locksmith and Copy II Plus and
those other programs banned as contributory infringement?  To stop
people from distributing information about copy protection removal
methods?  Back then, the courts slapped them down, and Congress even
passed laws explictly allowing backup copies to be made.  Now, such
programs are outlawed by statute, and you can be slapped with court
injunctions and even jail time for reverse engineering protected
programs.  Even if your purpose in doing such reverse engineering is
not to violate the copyright -- that's the current state of the law,
according to the judge in the DeCSS case.  I cannot respect such a
law, and if I follow it it is only out of fear of punishment.

>If you
>don't like it, try to get it changed instead of just complaining about
>how bad it is, ignoring it and trying to justify why you are breaking
>the law. 

I've covered this above.

>More importantly, don't encourage other people to ignore the
>law because you don't like it.

And why not? 

>I'm not trying to justify intellectual property law.  I'm just
>pointing out to people that what they are doing or promoting is
>illegal.

No shit.  So is selling a legitimate copy of Locksmith.  Next objection?  
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                                russotto@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."