View Single Post
Old 02-05-2010, 05:56 PM   #199
llreader
Mesmerist
llreader ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.llreader ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.llreader ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.llreader ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.llreader ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.llreader ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.llreader ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.llreader ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.llreader ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.llreader ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.llreader ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
llreader's Avatar
 
Posts: 331
Karma: 506558
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Spain
Device: PRS-600 Silver. Much nicer than I expected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc View Post
Very good point(s).
Thanks!

I wasn't trying to get on your case, and I know what you are trying to get at when you talk about "theft", but I think we need to be careful with words, because these kinds of terms have been used to try to stampede people into a situation that is unfair, with the reasoning that, if it is really theft, then you have to protect your property.

What is really going on is that there is a transaction in which all parties have certain rights, stipulated by law, contracts, and custom. In the current situation, the rights of one of the parties (the end consumer) are being squeezed out based on a misrepresentation of the transaction, in order to give an unfair advantage to another party (the middleman - record label, publisher, etc.) in the name of protecting the "intellectual property" of the people who originally created the works (and who always seem to get the shaft, no matter how many new powers the middlemen get).

In any case, the discussion has helped me understand much better what makes me uncomfortable about this situation. So, thanks again!
llreader is offline   Reply With Quote