4 ms·
Now, there is some more nuance than even that: if I sell your song, I am obviously depriving you of money people are willing to pay for it. If I give away your
by jcl 16y ago
Now, there is some more nuance than even that: if I sell your song, I am obviously depriving you of money people are willing to pay for it. If I give away your song tho, there is no money I am depriving you of -- the people who gave me $0 are not guaranteed to give you the asking price without my giveaway.
This is a new one on me... Bootlegging is bad because it deprives the creator of measurable money. But giving copies away is fine because the recipients might or might not have bought it anyway.
Or, to use a similar argument: Russian roulette is perfectly safe, since it's questionable if there's a bullet in the chamber.
Here's a thought experiment: suppose a bootlegger sells millions of copies of a song at one penny apiece, and he mails all the money to the song's creator. Does the creator have any cause to be upset?
- sophacles 16y agoThis whole response is a strawman. I never claimed the author should not be upset at copyright infringement. I never claimed that giving away copies is fine. I merely claimed that they may be different than theft. The ethics of the situation was never in the realm of discussion. The russian roulette analogy you make is doubly vile, and reeks of the worst type of intellectual dishonesty. First is based on the assumption I shot down above. Second, it has an emotional load and severe connotations which are not appropriate. (seriously, suicide games are in no way emotionally close in content to a song download, no matter how you spin it). Finally: a declaration of safe vs (presumably) not safe is a declaration of degree (of risk in this case), my declaration of theft vs not theft is not of degree, it is a declaration of category. Your analogy does not hold.
- chopsueyar 16y agoIf the creator must pay for the shipping of the pennies, it is a definite yes.