Text 7684, 112 rader
Skriven 2005-03-22 14:14:35 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
   Kommentar till text 7663 av Robert Couture (1:229/2000)
Ärende: FidoNews 22:11 [01/06]: Food For Thought
================================================
Robert Couture -> David Drummond wrote:

 DD>> If I haven't obtained the copy they have lost exactly the same
 DD>> amount of money - zero. If I wasn't going to buy/rent/pay to view it
anyway, ir
 DD>> income is the same whether I view the clone or not.

 RC> Wrong.  As long as you are willing to NOT pay for viewing the DVD, yet
 RC> are willing to watch the clone, you ARE taking money away from them.

Wrong! If I don't go to the movie, and I don't watch the clone (that someone
somewhere) paid to obtain they are just as much out of pocket.

 RC> You cannot justify your theft in any manner.

I have not stolen anything. No "rightful owner" has been deprived of any
property.

 RC>  If you do not wish to
 RC> buy/rent/pay to view their DVD, then you should not watch it.  Period.

According to you. I don't feel that way. Please do not force *your* moral
values on me!

 RC> You argument is a lame attept to justify violating another's copyright
 RC> and stealing money out of their pockets.

They never had that money on their pockets. It cannot be stolen out of same!

 DD>>>> They have lost income when I don't rent/buy the thing anyway. My
 DD>>>> watching a clone does not make them lose any more.

 RC>>> Yes it does.  For every clone you watch, they have lost that income.

 DD>> But... they have lost that anyway, I don't visit the cinema.

 RC> Yes they have if you watch a clone and do not pay for it.

But no more so than if I didn't watch it.


 DD>> I have lost income because you don't hire my services to write PHPs
 DD>> for you.

 RC> If I stole your code and used it without your permission, you have lost
 RC> money.  Same applies to viewing cloned movies.

You cannot steal my code, merely clone it. I still have the code I wrote. If
you use it or not, I have still missed out on the same amount of potential
income.

 RC>>> Yes.  Because you are watching the clone instead of renting/buying an
 RC>>> original.

 DD>> How did they lose more money by e watching the clone, it hasn't cost
 DD>> them any more for me to watch it, than to not watch it. They weren't
 DD>> going to get paid anyway.

 RC> Then you should not be watching a clone version.  Doing so robs them of
 RC> their rightful income.

That is your opinion. Mine is obviously different.


 RC>>> You are trying to justify your viewing of clones, but there is no
 RC>>> justification.

 DD>> I don't have to justify it, I have no qualms about this victimless
 RC> "crime".

 RC> There is no victimless crime here.  There are plenty of victims.  From
 RC> the producers to the actors down to the lowly grips that work on the
 RC> set.  The more theft that occurs the less money there is to produce more
 RC> movies.

They have already been paid for their work.

 RC> Yet you ignore the rest of the people you rob - those that have to pay
 RC> higher costs because of your theft.  They, too, are victims of your
 RC> "crime."

I have not "robbed" anyone, no "theft" has taken place". No court of law in
this country will charge me with theft for copyright infringement.
[...]

 DD>> And if people just watch them on TV, the renting/purchasing
 DD>> industry is gone anyway. Are we obliged to prop up other peoples' failing
business
 DD>> models?

 RC> The models would not be failing if people would do as they should and
 RC> pay for those movies/music, whatever.

Just as the wool industry would still be viable if everyone halted the evil
practice of wearing synthetics?

 DD>> Not that I don't understand, more that I refuse to be screwed over by
 DD>> the movie industry.

 RC> Right.  What a load.  And how is the movie industry screwing you?  You
 RC> are the one screwing them by increasing costs across the board.

By charging ridiculously high fees for viewing movies/buying them on DVD.

-- 

regards

David

---
 * Origin: Bugger! (3:640/305)