On Tuesday 12 February 2013 18:36:44 Al Thompson wrote: > On 02/12/2013 11:46 AM, drew Roberts wrote: > >> It's a necessary consequence of Kinsella's argument that some idiot with > >> a DVD burner can spend a few hours copying content he didn't create, and > >> he has exercised his inviolable property right while the people who made > >> that profit possible -- on the basis of years of training and practice > >> -- are screwed. > > > > Please explain why they are so *ignorant* as to not make those copies > > themselves and sell them? > > Perhaps the composer IS making copies and selling them. That is his > right, since he owns the copyright. Or perhaps he ISN'T, because he has > decided for whatever personal reason that he doesn't want the work 'out > there.' > > Explain who either of these situations would give YOU the right to make > copies of someone else's work and sell them. Would it be OK with you if someone made those copies and gave them away instead of selling them? You are assuming the existance of copyright law *and* you are assumning that it is morally and / or ethically right. You go to far. It is this that you need to debate here. I know I have no way to do this legally as things stand now. But from what I see, as things stand now, it would not surprise me if a majority of the people were commiting felonies with respect to copyright law. Back in the early 80's, I was a proponent of copyright law in my country when we basically didn't have one to speak of. At the time, I was more ignorant and the general state of copyright laws were not as bad. Also, the state of the world was such that they did not impact normal everyday activities or regular folks as much. Things have gotten much worse. If there were no copyright law, I would certainly have the right to make and sell copies of published works. Just like these folks are making and selling copies of books in the public domain: http://www.us.penguingroup.com/static/pages/classics/hardcoverclassics/index.html You cannot make a case of what is simply right and wrond by pointing to existing copyright law. You can only make a case for what is legal and illegal by doing that. Unless you care to make the case that every law, everywhere and at all times has been completely right. 1. If people got an automatic copyleft and not an automatic copyright. 2. If you had to register your work to get a copyright. 3. If copyright only lasted as long as current day patents. 4. If copyrgiht was only a civil issue adn not a criminal one. 5. If the creators could never part with more than 50% of their rights. ... Do you see where I am heading? > > > There is a world of material out there that it is legal to copy and sell. > > How many do it? Why don't you if it is so easy to make money that way? > > It's hardly easy to make money by SELLING what is available for FREE. > Sure, it happens. There are a few places on the internet where you can > pay to download something (like an owner's manual) that is available FOR > FREE on the manufacturer's website. Since the manufacturer in this case > makes it available for free, they aren't really ripping off the > manufacturer, but I'd say they are ripping off the consumer. So, those Penguin folks are ripping off the consumer? I mean, you could download the books from Project Gutenberg right? Should someone alert the authorities that they are ripping off the consumers? Here is a point you are ignoring. If you can't make money selling things that are legal to copy and that can be obtained for free. How can you make money selling things that are illegal to copy but are also available for free via download however illegally? How do people sell knokcoff CDs and DVDs when they are available as free downloads? all the best, drew _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
