Mark Kent wrote:
> [H]omer <spam@xxxxxxx> espoused:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> Can Microsoft teach tots digital-age virtue?
>>
>> Someone needs to take out a restraining order to keep these thugs
>> away from children, before they become corrupted by the Vole's
>> corporate fascist ideals.
>
> Take a look at this:
>
>
> |Pop quiz
> |
> | A question from the IPR curriculum:
> |
> | What effect does illegal music downloading have on the songwriter?
> | a) None, if he or she does not find out about it.
> | c) The songwriter can suffer monetary losses.
> | d) I am not sure.
> |
> | Supplied answer: c
> |
>
> Is it me, or is that amazingly misleading?
Rather more than that ... it's a lie. The injured party is the publisher
... /not/ the songwriter who probably gets paid bugger-all for digital
media "residuals" anyway. Typical sleight of hand tactic from the Vole.
It's propaganda via emotional blackmail ("aw, think of the songwriter
living in abject poverty, because /you/ stole his diner money", ad
nauseam). The reality is somewhat different ("aw, think of the
songwriters living in abject poverty, because the fat-bastard media
moguls won't pay them a decent percentage").
It's like I said before, no wonder so many people download copyrighted
media with wild abandon ... it's tough convincing people that it's wrong
to steal from thieves.
> Shouldn't it say something like "might, if you were going to buy it
> on a CD but chose not to" or something like that?
Yes, there's also the question of defining what is "property". If you
have a car, and I steal that car from you, then I've deprived you of
something tangible that requires replacement at cost. But if I merely
take a /photograph/ of your car, then what exactly has been stolen?
Nothing. You have "lost" nothing. It costs you nothing to replace it,
since there is nothing to replace.
So-called "IP" is nothing more than a license to print money, and the
worst part is, it isn't even those who /create/ that "art" who benefit
... it's some cigar-smoking suit in an office, who harvests souls for
profit.
> Answer b) is equally misleading, as it also assumes that the
> downloader would've bought the song instead. The assumptions really
> do need to be stated.
Those who can't pay are zero-losses anyway, but the main issue is
whether or not anyone should be expected to pay more than material
costs, for something that is nothing more than a facsimile.
> Answer a) is utterly and completely misleading, since in fact, the
> songwriter (if there is a traceable songwriter anyway) will be
> getting some publicity. All the indications I've seen suggest that
> exposure is good, and results in more income for the songwriter,
> rather than the other way around.
The answer is as loaded as the question ("illegal", "find out").
Is it "illegal" to listen to music on the radio? Is it "illegal" to play
your car radio with the windows down, thereby "broadcasting" it to
passers-by? Is it "illegal" to sing a pop song in the bath? Is even
/thinking/ about a song "illegal"?
This is the problem with "Intellectual Property". It is, like it says on
the tin, "intellectual". It is "property" of the mind. Once art, in its
many forms, has been witnessed, than that art has escaped the private
domain of the creator, and entered the public domain. It can't
thereafter be "taken back". Trying to control who is "allowed" to see;
hear; speak; sing; write; or even think about that art, once it is
released, is puerile bullshit, and given that the motivation for this
control is invariably greed, it is profoundly immoral puerile bullshit
at that.
> Answer d) needs to be "I'm not sure that any of the above answers are
> reasonable", and then the supplied answer should be d).
e) Intellectual Property is a copyrighted work of pure fiction
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
18:07:14 up 69 days, 15:43, 4 users, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.00
|
|
