6 ms·

And that's why the European counterparts of MAFIAA shouldn't be able to appeal to lost sales in many of these countries because don't have any fucking sales to

by yason 16y ago

And that's why the European counterparts of MAFIAA shouldn't be able to appeal to lost sales in many of these countries because don't have any fucking sales to lose. I've long advocated a fair-use rule that where a copyrighted work in some format isn't readily for sale in some geographical area, then people in that area should have the legal right to produce a copy of it in that format for themselves. The format is relevant because if people want CDs or uncompressed FLAC albums but they can only buy a lousy DRM-ridden 128Kbit/s MP3 instead, it shouldn't count. Same goes with old music or films: if nobody's selling, people have the legal right to copy. If the copyright holder decides to start selling again, the legal right to copy goes away. Then the longevity of a copyright would matter much less.

danieldk 16y ago
Indeed. I'd add to that that paying 15 Euro for a BluRay may be perfectly acceptable in the Western world, but a huge budget hit in the rest of the world. The buy 'physical media via the Internet' argument doesn't fly there either.
- roel_v 16y ago
  Right, and a 250k Lamborghini is also a huge budget hit for me in the West. Which is why I drive a shitty Citroen. I'm sick and tired of the entitled whining. Nobody owes you the right to listen to the latest album of whoever is at the top of the charts; in fact, nobody owes you anything but what they agreed on. The proposition is very clear: there are people who create something. They give it to you, on the condition that you pay for it. They may not want to offer it to you because it's too hard to do business in your country. If you don't agree to their terms, or their decision not to offer you their stuff, that still doesn't give you the right to just take whatever it is they're offering from another source. Feel free to find other people who make things you want and offer it at terms you accept; or petition people to offer things at a cheaper price; or whatever. But taking things from creators against their wishes is not only criminal but also immoral. (Maybe you still do it, even if it's criminal and immoral. That's a personal decision. But then just acknowledge it for what it is and don't try to weasel yourself out of the moral responsibility).
  - tjogin 16y ago
    One of my mottos is that it is far easier to change yourself than it is to change the world, even if you've done nothing wrong yourself. Trying to change everybody to live by that code is quite a bit harder than to adapt to the situation we're in (and, arguably, that kind of draconian view created in the first place).
  - ericd 16y ago
    I gather from your comments that your moral code depends heavily on the rule of law. Many people don't base their moral code very heavily on the laws currently on the books, except as far as those laws reflect the original intent of law - to make the world a better place to live overall. It's generally agreed upon that stealing physical goods, murdering, etc. make the world a more unruly, unpleasant, inefficient, discouraging place for meek, cooperative people. Filesharing doesn't fall into the same league in those terms, so many don't really believe it's immoral, especially if one wasn't going to buy those files if there was no alternative. In that case, it's like happiness created from nothing. This other moral code makes the morality question a good bit murkier. That's my understanding, anyway.
    - steve19 16y ago
      According to some, each person in the USA commits multiple felonies each day[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870447150457443...
    - krschultz 16y ago
      If filesharing undermines the creators to the point where they stop creating, will the world be a better place? In case you haven't noticed, we've had YouTube for years but the home-made movies are not on the same level as the ones produced by the major studies. Most indy bands are good, but can't reach their full potential without financial support. Filesharing undermines that whole system, especially because it would be near technically impossible to prevent something from being shared in all countries except those where the work is not being sold.

by yason 16y ago

danieldk 16y ago

Indeed. I'd add to that that paying 15 Euro for a BluRay may be perfectly acceptable in the Western world, but a huge budget hit in the rest of the world. The buy 'physical media via the Internet' argument doesn't fly there either.

roel_v 16y ago
Right, and a 250k Lamborghini is also a huge budget hit for me in the West. Which is why I drive a shitty Citroen. I'm sick and tired of the entitled whining. Nobody owes you the right to listen to the latest album of whoever is at the top of the charts; in fact, nobody owes you anything but what they agreed on. The proposition is very clear: there are people who create something. They give it to you, on the condition that you pay for it. They may not want to offer it to you because it's too hard to do business in your country. If you don't agree to their terms, or their decision not to offer you their stuff, that still doesn't give you the right to just take whatever it is they're offering from another source. Feel free to find other people who make things you want and offer it at terms you accept; or petition people to offer things at a cheaper price; or whatever. But taking things from creators against their wishes is not only criminal but also immoral. (Maybe you still do it, even if it's criminal and immoral. That's a personal decision. But then just acknowledge it for what it is and don't try to weasel yourself out of the moral responsibility).
- tjogin 16y ago
  One of my mottos is that it is far easier to change yourself than it is to change the world, even if you've done nothing wrong yourself. Trying to change everybody to live by that code is quite a bit harder than to adapt to the situation we're in (and, arguably, that kind of draconian view created in the first place).
- ericd 16y ago
  I gather from your comments that your moral code depends heavily on the rule of law. Many people don't base their moral code very heavily on the laws currently on the books, except as far as those laws reflect the original intent of law - to make the world a better place to live overall. It's generally agreed upon that stealing physical goods, murdering, etc. make the world a more unruly, unpleasant, inefficient, discouraging place for meek, cooperative people. Filesharing doesn't fall into the same league in those terms, so many don't really believe it's immoral, especially if one wasn't going to buy those files if there was no alternative. In that case, it's like happiness created from nothing. This other moral code makes the morality question a good bit murkier. That's my understanding, anyway.
  - steve19 16y ago
    According to some, each person in the USA commits multiple felonies each day[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870447150457443...
  - krschultz 16y ago
    If filesharing undermines the creators to the point where they stop creating, will the world be a better place? In case you haven't noticed, we've had YouTube for years but the home-made movies are not on the same level as the ones produced by the major studies. Most indy bands are good, but can't reach their full potential without financial support. Filesharing undermines that whole system, especially because it would be near technically impossible to prevent something from being shared in all countries except those where the work is not being sold.