[Gllug] Uh oh, ministers consider "anti file-sharing laws"

[Simon Wilcox]

Martin A. Brooks wrote:
> Downloading a cracked game from the Internet deprives the software house 
> of income.

Only if you would otherwise have paid for it.

> Downloading an MP3 from the Internet, rather than buying via iTunes, or 
> whatever, deprives the publisher of income.

Only if you would otherwise have paid for it.

> You are playing games and listening to music you have not paid for.

I'm listening to the radio at the moment. I didn't pay for that. The 
point being it's about business models.

> Taking stuff out of shops without paying for it is stealing.  Why should 
> the medium by which stuff is taken magically turn "theft" into 
> "copyright infringement" ?

Because you haven't prevented the legitimate owner of the physical thing 
from enjoying the benefits of ownership of that thing.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that if you enjoy something that you've 
obtained from t'internet then you are morally bound to pay what the 
author asks for it but if you otherwise would never have bought it, why 
should it be considered theft. Think of it as the equivalent of 
listening to it round your mate's house and thinking "this is rubbish". 
Having listened to it and decided not to buy it, aren't you now 
depriving the authors of income and have therefore "stolen" from them ?

S.
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug