Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Mar 2010 16:58 UTC
Permalink for comment 412944
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-02-19
Don't exaggerate, now. In most cases, the penalties for file sharing dramatically exceed the actual damages done to content producers and distributors -- and, never forget, a pirated song does not necessarily equal a lost sale, and therefore does not imply harm to the distributor. If we had short, reasonable copyright terms -- like, say, five or ten years, long enough to recoup production costs and make a tidy profit -- and if the penalties for content piracy where much more in line with the actual harms (i.e. maybe $100 per song, at the outside), then I think most people would be O.K. with things. It's the abuse and corruption of IP law, and its flight to extremes that I think most people have a problem with. Nobody's demanding the abolition of private property -- well, most of us aren't.
tldr; can you say "strawman"?