It seems that the upstanding people at the MPAA think the best way to guarantee future profits is by convincing children that it is their duty as good citizens to buy their products:
By the end of one session, the teacher asked one boy: ''Will you stop copying music online and download the right way?"
''Yes," he answered. ''I'll go to the music store and buy more CDs."
Students learn to repeat the program's motto: ''If you don't pay for it, you've stolen it."
The Boston Globe: Laying down the copyright law -- to children
Ignoring the ethics of taking commercialism to the classroom and portraying a completely one-sided viewpoint, you can get music legally for free.
Re:Rephrasing
gav on 2004-04-26T16:05:49
I think "If you don't pay for it and you use it and it's not covered by fair use and the author wants you to pay for it, then you've deprived them of a possible royalty" is catchier.Re:Rephrasing
petdance on 2004-04-26T16:26:36
Why make it so complicated? It's really pretty simple.The author/artist put out some material. The publishing company published it for them. Both of those entities want you to pay for it. Now, assuming it's not fair use, why should you, as a third party, be able to decide "I choose not to pay for this? I choose not to respect the wishes of the artist & publisher?"
If someone violates the GPL, we're up in arms about it. Why? It violates what the author of the GPL-covered item wanted. Why is this different?
It really boils down to an issue of respect for one's fellow man.
Re:Rephrasing
gav on 2004-04-26T16:44:59
Why make it so complicated? It's really pretty simple.
I was objecting to your use of stole. I think it's wrong to deprive people of money they deserve. I also think it's wrong to call it stealing. If you choose to download an artist's work you haven't stolen from them, you've deprived them of potential income.
Re:Rephrasing
merlyn on 2004-04-26T16:52:11
To paraquote Jennifer Aniston's character in Office Space, "And that's not stealing, how?"Really, what is it, if it's not stealing? If you hadn't done it, they'd be richer. You did it, and now they're poorer. Sucks to be you.
Re:Rephrasing
gav on 2004-04-26T17:02:24
If you hadn't done it, they'd be richer. You did it, and now they're poorer.
My point is that they are not poorer. They're just not richer.
Re:Rephrasing
petdance on 2004-04-27T17:52:30
My point is that they are not poorer. They're just not richer.And why is it OK for someone other than the author to decide that that's OK to do?
Re:Rephrasing
petdance on 2004-04-26T16:52:16
"Depriving them of potential income" isn't theft? What if I go and get your paycheck out of your mailbox before you get to it?How about this? How about if we say "Using the materials in a way that the author specifically doesn't want is an asshole thing to do?"
Re:Rephrasing
chromatic on 2004-04-27T16:25:47
The "depriving" argument is inspecific; that's a big problem with most of these arguments.
If you pick up one of my books in the bookstore, read the back cover, and decide not to buy it, are you "depriving [me] of potential income"? I think so, but you're not stealing or infringing my copyright.
The second is a lot better -- but even though I disclaim responsibility and specifically allow all sorts of uses of Free Software that I write and distribute, I'd still prefer people not use it to do things I consider icky or wrong. (I know that wasn't what you meant though.)
