>>Ok… but I am not sure why you would think this. A moral system, which is what we are >>really talking about here, based on consequences without call to intentions just wont >>stand up.
Well, actually, I'm for both considering the intentions and consequences. But just as a person who killed another in defense commits ManSlaughter while another who kills for vengence commits murder or something, depending on the degree of premeditation. I'm not sure how anyone can make unauthorised duplication on defense or accidentally!
But as I mentioned about the French case, I am for the rated fines. So while I would group the p2p with the hawker pirates, I would consider it fair that each face the music to varying degrees, depending on the consequences and on the intention. In a sense, the consequence in this case, the consequences is strongly linked to the intention. Just as its hard to accidentally plan a mass-murder or grand theft, it is difficult to accidentally distribute software for online piracy.
>>Judgements about these situations need to also look at reasons, not just effects. This is the case if we are talking about piracy, murder, industrial mishaps and, I guess, jaywalking.
I guess I would eat and chew and spit out my words there.
It would be that copying for one's granny (granny: When will this ever stop??
) would not not make one guilty of a major crime (minor offense maybe?), while those committing hawking piracy is clearly committing a crime. So ok, let's not group them together as criminals, lets say its petty crime and felony or something?
I'm not familiar with the US federal laws or the state laws, but surely someone who shoplifts is a thief (or shoplifter!). Maybe there is a rule that says if you shoplift < US$20, you get a slap on the hand, >=$20 and <$100, fine of certain amount ... etc etc. The point is, is there a minimum you must shoplift to "qualify" as a shoplifter? Or is the amount irrelevant?
(Ok, this thread is so [s]funny[/s] cool, we are now going into legislation and stuffs! ... hey, let's run for the senate!
Then we can debate over it and actually pass the bills!
)
>>>but such actions still lead, as like that of the hawker pirate, to inevitable financial losses on the part of content maker/distro.
>>That’s not true. That’s back to the “deprival of sale” argument made in this thread what >>seems like many moons ago.
>>It is not the case that any instance of piracy leads to financial loss to the content owner.
>>It is the case that some instances of piracy will lead to financial loss but these are the >>minority. Furthermore, in such cases the content providers, when they get with the >>modern, have many other avenues to take revenue that don’t rely own “data as property”.
Yes, its an old case, but your honour and dear members of the jury, lend me thy ears, for I have new evidence that will prove that while it may be difficult to prove that *all* forms of piracy will lead to financial loss to the content owner, any forms of piracy will *not* lead to such a loss.
I completely agree that there are many ways to make a profit from creative contents. But as I mentioned earlier, the p2p piracy that may not lead to financial loss
changes the intended business model that was decided upon by the content owner + distro folks.
Would it be fair for us to demand that MacDonalds not have a cashier upfront, but to just serve us the food and let us decide if its worth the money and then pay for it later on? ok, I should not have suggested this, 'cos there will be some folks who feel that MacDonalds is charging too much for a burger and should give us free burgers and stuffs. :P
Would MacDonalds make its intended profit this way? Hey, you never know. Some may just leave the change or pay more since they are getting such a deal. MacDonalds' earnings might not even flinch. But is it right?
How about if we switch it the other way round? How about if some pirates manage to crack our bank accounts and make off with our money. And just so you know, not all of them will run you dry. Some of them will just fish a few dollars for ... their granny! (granny: Leave me out of this, and take your mp3 and $3 with you while you close the door!
) And among them, some will send you mp3s worth $3. No, actually what if all of them did, except that they may take awhile to do so, say 3 months? Or 3 yrs?
Not such a pretty picture anymore eh? But wait, its not the same. p2p do not directly cause or may not cause financial loss. How about if the pirates fish off some money from the bank but not from your account. Consequently or otherwise, the banks consider that as a tax of some sort, or a writeoff. Well, it will ultimately go around and hit someone. Someone. Better hope its not one of us.
>>Absolutely. It is exciting. It also could be scary but I don’t think it will be. I expect my >>Granddaughter to say to me in 40 years time “You mean it used to be wrong to share >>music?” In much the same way as I could say to my departed “You mean it used to be >>wrong to be homosexual?”
Or how about "You mean you guys had to pay for music?"
>>>I think you have hit the nail on the head. The battle shouldn’t be about legal, moral or >>>technology issues, it should be about the price.
>>>Most people seem to be willing top pay for stuff if the price is right. And when you >>>remove the exclusivity of the pre-digital distributors the price should settle to just about right.
Yeap, its always about following the buck.
Can someone break the DRM for physical materials already? I need to duplicate that UMPC I saw on this site the other day!
