somebody wrote:
> "Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
> news:4a060cba$1@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
>>>> - the persons that trick parliaments into giving money to the industry
>>>> (i.d. themselves) with moving stories about the artists not getting
>>>> paid. While making sure that almost none of that money will reach the
>>>> artists as that would make another round of free money impossible.
>>> they would not be able to do this if it were not for the freeloaders.
> Hence
>>> the phrase " freeloaders that are ruining it for *everybody* ". It's the
>>> same old story: Some break the law, everybody is made to pay the price
>>> because they either protect the law breakers or are oblivious to it.
>> I also, BTW, find it amusing that you invoke "free market" in one
>> message on the issue, and then seem to think little of them using the
>> government to get what they want.
> 
> Free market != lawlessness/stealing. On the contrary, free market works on

	Never said nor implied that it was.

	Companies try to market the result of artwork. They're free to change
their business model to survive. They've fought it in the past, lost the
fight, changed their model, and all signs indicate that they made more
profit as a result.

	They'll do the same here. They've already begun to.

	What irritates people is the attempts to tax goods is simply an attempt
to get innocent people to fork over money to them because of claimed
losses due to a business model they refuse to change. Then they'll
change it - and reap the benefits of both. It's simply an attempt to
accumulate more wealth.

	What also irritates some is that likely, the artists aren't getting any
of the money that people are paying fines for. (Too lazy to look it up
in detail, but this came straight from the mouth of an artist) The whole
idea was to recuperate amount lost in sales, wasn't it? And artists get
paid a percentage of the sales of each album they sell. So why aren't
they getting any of that money?

	The claim is always "losing sales". The evidence and the distribution
of the money they "reclaim" suggests otherwise.

	The specifics of the notions behind copyright are *not* universally
applicable throughout all times, and are quite related to technology. As
such, technology can and does change what is considered acceptable.
Copyright's main purpose is to promote the production of artistic
material. The financial aspect is merely a means to maintain that
promotion - not an end in itself. Once copyright law exceeds that goal
it has exceeded its bounds. I can't see a good reason for a law that
guarantees one can profit from something one created 70 years ago, for
example. 10? 20? Maybe even 30. But 70? Nope. Certainly not an argument
to support the promotion of arts. If anything, having such a long
lifetime discourages artists from producing more work.

	As I said - copyright is not by any means a human right. It has become
a government enforced privilege - and unlike driving licenses, it is a
privilege that has gone well beyond its benefits.

	And once you greatly exceed any bounds, you'll create the outlaws that
exist. You advocate the erosion of others' freedoms to go after the
outlaws. I advocate a revamping of the laws because they don't seem to
support the reasons those laws existed to begin with.

	I just can't see an argument supporting taxing others, and passing laws
that interfere with how other people live, over excessive rights for
which there's no reason certain people have. If you can't enforce those
rights without encumbering the majority, it's a sign that those rights
are questionable.

-- 
He who slings mud generally loses ground.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message