When I was twelve, I had been in business for myself two years, and had moved out of the house. ---------------------
...and you see that as the general state of the situation today? :p I mean, you have extremes in all areas, but if you start putting up security measures by their standards, you might just hang yourself and be done with it. "Oh! Someone could walk down the street and shoot me! Quick, make a law that bans walking down the street!"
(*)We're not discussing changing the laws to be more lenient towards juvenile pirates here, we're discussing whether or not the laws/actions based on the current findings are right or not [aka, if the findings themselves are valid].
Are there people who only use pirated software, even when they can afford it? Yes. Are there people that never use pirated software? Yes. Are there people that use pirated software, but pay for the ones they think are worth it? Yes.
We can both recite a ton of examples from all of those categories, the question here is, which is the majority one. And unless #1 represents more than 50%, the current laws are already questionable, as you're statistically more probable to punish loyal customer for testing a product than you are to punish those that deserve it. But again I digress, a nod towards (*).
Okay, let's see if I can pull together a reason why I keep bringing this up. The current copyright/software/sharing/streaming-related bills/laws are on based on statistics that determine how damaging the activity is. And all of these statistics are relying on the existing laws not to be questioned. AKA, if all pirates are BAD, then the figures must make sense, right? One copy pirated means one copy's profits lost. But if we allow for the possibility that not all software piracy is in fact damaging for business[people that couldn't afford it to start with (this has nothing to do with deciding which person is which, just that there ARE people like that), people that use it for convenience's sake and not because they think it worth it (IE proves this is a strong factor),...]and can in fact sometimes be a positive thing[education about the product for future users (3D software), commercial value for software that has no demos], then those finding begin appearing very very high. Certainly too high to be realistic. And if that is so, does this make the current efforts valid? This goes double for music, where getting known is the biggest hurdle to overcome and P2Ps are a godsend. I have a lot of artists` [exp: Lennie Moore] and smaller publishing companies` sites [exp: Alternative Tentacles] bookmarked and all of them carry MP3s of their works, in some cases, ALL of their works. If MP3 sharing is bad for 50 artists but good for 50 000, doesn't it at least deserve a second though?
-------------------- The record companies do not have a "monopoly", it seems to me, unless you are playing with definitions. I have produced and sold CDs, and have sponsored a couple of music groups. So, your definition would have to include me as a "record company". ;) --------------------
I was refering to the RIAA there actually. Which has a reputation for screwing their artists over or wouldn't you know it, yet is being listened to as the definitive voice of "the music industry".
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2002-07-07 01:54 pm (UTC)---------------------
...and you see that as the general state of the situation today? :p
I mean, you have extremes in all areas, but if you start putting up security measures by their standards, you might just hang yourself and be done with it. "Oh! Someone could walk down the street and shoot me! Quick, make a law that bans walking down the street!"
(*)We're not discussing changing the laws to be more lenient towards juvenile pirates here, we're discussing whether or not the laws/actions based on the current findings are right or not [aka, if the findings themselves are valid].
Are there people who only use pirated software, even when they can afford it? Yes.
Are there people that never use pirated software? Yes.
Are there people that use pirated software, but pay for the ones they think are worth it? Yes.
We can both recite a ton of examples from all of those categories, the question here is, which is the majority one. And unless #1 represents more than 50%, the current laws are already questionable, as you're statistically more probable to punish loyal customer for testing a product than you are to punish those that deserve it.
But again I digress, a nod towards (*).
Okay, let's see if I can pull together a reason why I keep bringing this up. The current copyright/software/sharing/streaming-related bills/laws are on based on statistics that determine how damaging the activity is. And all of these statistics are relying on the existing laws not to be questioned. AKA, if all pirates are BAD, then the figures must make sense, right? One copy pirated means one copy's profits lost.
But if we allow for the possibility that not all software piracy is in fact damaging for business [people that couldn't afford it to start with (this has nothing to do with deciding which person is which, just that there ARE people like that), people that use it for convenience's sake and not because they think it worth it (IE proves this is a strong factor),...] and can in fact sometimes be a positive thing [education about the product for future users (3D software), commercial value for software that has no demos], then those finding begin appearing very very high. Certainly too high to be realistic. And if that is so, does this make the current efforts valid?
This goes double for music, where getting known is the biggest hurdle to overcome and P2Ps are a godsend. I have a lot of artists` [exp: Lennie Moore] and smaller publishing companies` sites [exp: Alternative Tentacles] bookmarked and all of them carry MP3s of their works, in some cases, ALL of their works.
If MP3 sharing is bad for 50 artists but good for 50 000, doesn't it at least deserve a second though?
--------------------
The record companies do not have a "monopoly", it seems to me, unless you are playing with definitions. I have produced and sold CDs, and have sponsored a couple of music groups. So, your definition would have to include me as a "record company". ;)
--------------------
I was refering to the RIAA there actually. Which has a reputation for screwing their artists over or wouldn't you know it, yet is being listened to as the definitive voice of "the music industry".