Text 7729, 104 rader
Skriven 2005-03-22 19:22:48 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
   Kommentar till text 7688 av Dale Shipp (1:261/1466.0)
Ärende: Intellectual Property
=============================
Dale Shipp -> David Drummond wrote:

 RY>> The movie was produced at some expense to the Production Company.

 DD>> But not the copy I have.

 DS>    Wrong -- if the production company had not created the movie, you
 DS>    would not have had a copy.

That does not explain how my cloned copy has cost them. The have exactly the
same amount of funds whether I have this copy or not.

[...]

 DD>> But if I wasn't going to pay to go and see the movie anyway, they were
 DD>> not  going to maximise that profit from me.

 DS>   True -- but if you did not get an unauthorized copy to watch, you
 DS>   might well have gone to see it or paid to rent a copy.

Might? One does not base one's business model on what *I* might do.

 DS>  The existence of unauthorized copies diminishes their revenue from their
 DS>   intellectual property.

I disagree - it means more people get to view the works.

Some of us simply won't go to the movies or rent/buy DVDs because we get so
screwed by their prices.

[...]

 DD>> But they've place no effort in that particular copy.

 DS>   Their effort was in the original creation.  That creation was their
 DS>   intellectual property.  The fact that it was not bricks and mortar
 DS>   does not make it any less valuable, nor does it diminish their right
 DS>   to profit from its creation if they so choose.

But they still haven't had to outlay any more for my copy.


 RY>> Similar to you not being paid by your company for work you do,
 DS> that's not fair.

 DD>> My work cannot be instantly duplicated at no cost to me.

 DS>    Depends on what you do.  For some of us, our work can be duplicated
 DS>    once it was created.

Something those of you who do that have to worry about. The things that my
employer pays me to do could be done by other people, but at this time, the
employer pays me to do them.

[...]
 DD>> The original owner has everything he
 DD>> started with.

 DS>   That is where you are wrong.  The original owner has lost the right to
 DS>   control or profit from his creation.

Just as Michiel has lost the right to control his creation?

 DD>> For a long time the Australian copyright law required  the
 DD>> distribution for  (financial) return as the criteria for copyright
 DD>> infringement. Copying for personal use, and/or giving it
 DD>> away for free were perfectly acceptable.

 DS>   Given your apparent attitude towards intellectual property and if we
 DS>   are to believe your statements about the attitude of your adopted
 DS>   country, it is not too surprising that much of the talent in the
 DS>   entertainment industry there comes to America to ply their craft where
 DS>   they know that they *WILL* be compensated and not ripped off by
 DS>   unauthorized copies.

Australia has a thriving entertainment industry - even some of the recent name
brand "US" productions were made here/by Aussie people.

Obviously, as USA has more than 10 times the population of Australia, it should
have more than 10 times the talented people to call on to produce such works
(and 10 times the persons prepared to breach copyright - where do you think the
copies I have have originated from?).

Of course, as those works move to a society where the people are not as
conditioned to "toe the party line" (brainwashed to accept everything they're
told), such copying will happen. Australians tend to be a lot "easier going"
that the USAians appear to be, a lot less obsessed with the almighty dollar.

Many USAian works come to Australia. Being made in USA does *not* guarantee
that they get royalties from every copy made.

That all said, I cannot say that my attitude is indicative of all Australians,
rather it is indicative only of those of like mind.

BTW - I have not adopted Australia, I just live here.

-- 

regards

David

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