3 ms·
I'm not sure if there's any relevant point of fact we disagree on now. The only point I'd make is that the copyright industry hasn't claimed "every copy is a l
by ikeboy 11y ago
I'm not sure if there's any relevant point of fact we disagree on now.
The only point I'd make is that the copyright industry hasn't claimed "every copy is a lost sale", they've claimed that some copies are lost sales. Often, the question is whether the "main purpose" of a technology is for illegal purposes, and if the answer was yes, it wouldn't be allowed, even if there were legitimate uses.
Regardless, "the analogy breaks down here, therefore the analogy isn't valid anywhere" is not a valid argument. To the extent the parody is doing that, it's wrong.
- lostcolony 11y agoStretching the analogy to the point of breaking is actually a very useful bit of rhetoric when one side insists on using an analogy. That is, when the copyright industry says "sharing these files is hurting us, we must make it illegal to make copies" (because that is what they lobby for, anti-DRM circumvention and the like), showing that making copies -is not what hurts your business model- is a worthwhile goal, in both courts of law and courts of public opinion. The initial analogy is not a valid argument; taking it to the breaking point and by doing so showing that the analogy is too simplistic to be accurate, is a valid response.
- ikeboy 11y agoAgain, the original is not an analogy. They never said every copy is a lost sale. So only a strawman is being attacked here. The avenue you should be pursuing is getting the LoC to allow DVD ripping as a DMCA exemption. I don't even think the movie industry would oppose.