Firstly I want to avoid any (undue) criticism by stating firmly: I do not personally believe sharing files online is stealing. I'm just taking the record & movie industries' logic a little further to a quite strange conclusion.
A major contention point with the MPAA & RIAA's arguments is that they've again and again associated file sharing with stealing. Many people argue against this because it's not literally stealing (For it to be literally stealing someone who had purchased the item would have to be denied it due to the file sharer's action). However in a slightly twisted bit of logic, the stealing is explained as stealing a sale from the artist. This takes more than a slight jump in logic when applied to file sharing as it assumes that if you hadn't have been offering the file online on your P2P network of choice at that time, the downloader would have popped straight off to the shops to buy the song legally. Dubious at best, but let's stick with this and take it further.
So: If you prevent the artist/creator from making a sale you're stealing.
I can think of a much more concrete example of this than file sharing: selling second-hand media. Most media retail stores are either in or are starting to grow into the 2nd-hand market. Companies like Game in the UK and Gamestop in the US are enjoying very large profits and a large percentage isn't down to selling new games/films. It's down to selling 2nd hand ones. You see, a company can make a much much higher margin selling a 2nd hand copy than selling a new one, as the publisher and developer get nothing from the 2nd hand sale.
They're doing this very aggressively as well. They'll often check to see if they can offer a 2nd hand copy to a customer standing there cash in hand, already commited to the purchase of a brand new copy, for only a few quid less: This is absolutely 100% stealing a sale from the artist. Not only are these guys blatently "stealing" as per the definition above, the file sharer does it for free and the retailer is making millions from it.
But they're suing the single moms first eh?
23 June 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn an ideal world with ideal consumers who attribute value to good track/film/game and reimburse the originators accordingly then the rules wouldn't be needed. Unfortunately that's not the case and so we've got this horrible mish-mash of contradictory and unenforceable rules which are long overdue for an overhaul. These rules are being pushed by the middle-men who are desperately trying to hold on to their slice of the pie. (mmmm... media pie).
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the 2nd-hand game thing is actually illegal? I'm guessing it probably is, aren't they licensed rather than bought the same was as music is?