
It's not my fault your business model sucks. - apotheon
http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1525
======
wwalker3
It's a reiteration of a sentiment I've seen a lot recently: "My livelihood
doesn't depend on copyright, so I'll feel free to violate yours."

Are people really so unconcerned about the livelihood of others? Each of us is
already free to give away the fruits of our own labors -- but why insist that
others must do the same?

~~~
kiba
It is actually a very capitalist/libertarian mentality.

"If you are able to compete in the market, good for you. If you couldn't
compete, so what?"

It does not however, mean that they support government granted monopolies,
subsidy, or other form of crony capitalism.

To some libertarians, copyright and patent are a form of _crony_ capitalism.

~~~
wwalker3
If I know that an author doesn't want me to copy his book, I won't copy it.
It's not a matter of law or monopoly, it's just politeness.

~~~
apotheon
That's great.

Now . . . let's see if we can avoid legislating politeness.

~~~
tptacek
Clearly we can't, since virtually everything that can be downloaded for free
on the Internet is being downloaded for free on the Internet, books very much
included.

~~~
apotheon
I'm not sure exactly how you think that addresses my point. Perhaps you're
fallaciously affirming the consequent.

------
ismarc
I saddened that the intent of copyright has been forgotten so much. As has
been pointed out, copyright is a "contract" between the people and the
creator. The creator is given a limited time in which they can exclusively
profit fro m a work IN ORDER TO PROMOTE THE CREATION OF FURTHER WORKS.
Copyright does not exist for the creator. It exists for the people. By
allowing an avenue for the creator to exclusively profit from a creation for a
time, the people can then expect further works from the creator, resulting in
a much richer society with great works of art. The perversion of this system
by perpetually extending copyrights stifles the creation of further works due
to the maintained state of the original copyright. I am a musician, and am
overjoyed that I have exclusive control over my original works for a time
period. I am a software developer, and I am overjoyed that for a period of
time I can be the sole distributor of the works. I am a consumer, and I am
disappointed by the lack of progress in created works due to the maintenance
of copyrights.

------
tptacek
Who said it was your fault that their business model sucks?

~~~
RyanMcGreal
The RIAA keeps saying it to everyone.

~~~
tptacek
I think that's a straw man. The RIAA is saying, "just because you don't like
our business model, doesn't mean you get to ignore copyright". And they're
right. Listen to something other than Britney.

~~~
apotheon
The reason we don't "get" to ignore those monopolistic practices is the simple
fact that it's a law -- which says nothing at all about whether it's right or
wrong.

~~~
tptacek
So you're advocating simply ignoring the laws you don't approve of? Or of
scolding the RIAA for demanding they be enforced? I don't get it. Nobody's
saying the RIAA's business model is your fault. You are free to avoid the
RIAA: don't use their offerings.

~~~
kiba
Nowhere does apotheon advocate the breaking of laws, just whether a law is
right or wrong.

~~~
tptacek
Nowhere does apotheon actually advocate that copyright law is wrong, because
that would be boring. Instead, he's set up a passive-aggressive straw man
argument. Which is my point.

~~~
apotheon
> Nowhere does apotheon actually advocate that copyright law is wrong

Incorrect. Try following links once in a while.

Do you expect me to say everything in one place? My god, all my opinions and
explanations relevant to them in one place -- it would be a document fit to
fill the Library of Congress.

> Instead, he's set up a passive-aggressive straw man argument.

The fact you are incapable of recognizing the implicit message in advocating
for strict enforcement of copyright law is your failing -- not mine.

