> you have no "right" to copy this content and > give it to all of your budies
True, you don't have a right to distribute movies, songs, etc. but there is a US law (I'd imagine there's something similar in most developed countries) that protects you from prosecution if you make copies only for personal use (although the DMCA and equivalents will often prevent you from legally obtaining the tools you need to do this.) Content distributors would love to get rid of the fair-use provisions so they can sell you the same content multiple times.
> I guess people feel better about breaking the > law when they call it sharing instead of what it > really is: stealing.
It really isn't stealing, you know. To me, stealing intellectual property means plagarism, not unauthorised distribution. If person X gives a copy of movie Y to person Z, who had no intention of buying it anyway, then the makers and distributers of movie Y have lost nothing. I'm certainly not saying it's "right" to do such things, just that it isn't exactly a cardinal sin worthy of the sort of harsh rhetoric coming out of the RIAA and MPAA. Content distributors won't support this point of view, of course, because person Z helps to give their rantings and ravings about lost sales more weight.
> This is how things are supposed to work, stop > complaining about how your rights are somehow > being violated and start taking your money > elsewhere. They will eventually get the message. > If not, let them rot in bankruptcy.
This isn't going to work if an entire *industry* is ganging up on you. Also, some of the things being proposed by the movie and recording industries (eg. the CBDTPA) would have a profound impact beyond listening to music and watching movies, particularly in the development of open-source software.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Here we go again
Posted by: David Cooper on July 18, 2002 05:08 PM> give it to all of your budies
True, you don't have a right to distribute movies, songs, etc. but there is a US law (I'd imagine there's something similar in most developed countries) that protects you from prosecution if you make copies only for personal use (although the DMCA and equivalents will often prevent you from legally obtaining the tools you need to do this.) Content distributors would love to get rid of the fair-use provisions so they can sell you the same content multiple times.
> I guess people feel better about breaking the
> law when they call it sharing instead of what it
> really is: stealing.
It really isn't stealing, you know. To me, stealing intellectual property means plagarism, not unauthorised distribution. If person X gives a copy of movie Y to person Z, who had no intention of buying it anyway, then the makers and distributers of movie Y have lost nothing. I'm certainly not saying it's "right" to do such things, just that it isn't exactly a cardinal sin worthy of the sort of harsh rhetoric coming out of the RIAA and MPAA. Content distributors won't support this point of view, of course, because person Z helps to give their rantings and ravings about lost sales more weight.
> This is how things are supposed to work, stop
> complaining about how your rights are somehow
> being violated and start taking your money
> elsewhere. They will eventually get the message.
> If not, let them rot in bankruptcy.
This isn't going to work if an entire *industry* is ganging up on you. Also, some of the things being proposed by the movie and recording industries (eg. the CBDTPA) would have a profound impact beyond listening to music and watching movies, particularly in the development of open-source software.
#