Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Jan 2011 12:02 UTC
Multimedia, AV I generally need a billion words to explain the problems inherit in the current copyright system. Joss Stone needs just one minute. "I don't care how you hear it - as long as you hear it." Can we please appoint Ms Stone as supreme overlord of the universe?
Thread beginning with comment 459157
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The1stImmortal
Member since:
2005-10-20

"My opinion is that if companies fail because of piracy, it's because they didn't find a sustainable business strategy, so it's nothing more than their own fault.


What a nice logical fallacy.

So, if the police is unable to catch the thieves, shops must find an alternative business strategy?

How nice.

The attempt to justify piracy is pathetic. Unfortunately, many people are blinded by the "it's free, I can take it" mentality and support this totally illogical view.
"

I'm afraid you've a fallacy there yourself - a false analogy. As many others have mentioned, Theft != Copyright Violation. Theft from a store produces a direct financial cost (in the form of assets no longer being in their posession) to the business. Copyright violation is at most the loss of *potential revenue*, and last I checked it's not theft to deprive someone of something that doesn't actually exist in any form.

Admittedly, the copyright violation may decrease the saleable value of assets in the possession of the owner, but hey that's life. Business is an investment, and investments carry risk.

Perhaps a better analogy would be this:

Bob's Drink Shop opens in Drytown, and obtains an exclusive permit from the local authorities to sell bottled water in Drytown.

For a long time, being the source for something popular (even necessary) they make lots of money.

Suddenly someone cottons on to the fact that you can make your OWN bottled water, using other bottles and tapwater. Suddenly Bob's Drink Shop isn't doing so well - not as many people want to buy the water if they can get it for free. Others just find it easier not to have to go all the way across town to Bob's Drink Shop all the time for water, even if they like Bob's water and still buy it regularly.

Bob's Drink Shop then starts to complain, calling the self-bottled-water drinkers "thieves" and making their bottles single-use-only to stop others reusing them.
When that doesn't work, they go back to the local authorities and try to make bottling your own water illegal and later even launches massive lawsuits against known self-bottled-water drinkers, even the ones that still buy from them too! The local authorities institute a tax on mains water to homes and businesses to compensate Bob's Drink Shop for their lost potential revenue.

Should the local authorities simply keep supporting Bob's Drink Shop, even though it's business model is clearly not working anymore? Even if it means a few people who make a living bottling water for Bob's Drink Shop won't have a job anymore? Yes, Bob's Drink shop works hard, as do the bottlers they employ, but merely expending effort doesn't somehow entitle them to income surely?

[Obviously in this analogy, Water itself isn't owned by Bob's, but the "Right to Distribute Bottled Water" in Drytown is. And water, being (essentially) the same no matter the source, is basically a "copy" of the bottled water.
Hmm... if anyone can come up with a better copyright analogy while avoiding actual copyrightable things, please post it. Between us all perhaps we could search for the ultimate rebuttal analogy to those who claim Piracy is Theft.]

Reply Parent Score: 1