"[A]lthough it is true that someone who copies a digital version of a sound recording has little incentive to purchase the recording through legitimate means, it does not necessarily follow that the downloader would have made a legitimate purchase if the recording had not been available for free," said US District court Judge James P. Jones, in response to the RIAA's request for restitution against the former admin of Elite Torrents, Daniel Dove. ... "It is a basic principle of economics that as price increases, demand decreases. Customers who download music and movies for free would not necessarily spend money to acquire the same product. I am skeptical that customers would pay $7.22 or $19 for something they got for free. Certainly 100% of the illegal downloads through Elite Torrents did not result in the loss of a sale, but both Lionsgate and RIAA estimate their losses based on this faulty assumption."posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:26 AM on December 13, 2009
Justinian: "I think advocating that copyright be reduced to a few months is a pretty ridiculous position, myself. Might as well advocate eliminating copyright entirely. At least it's an ethos."This sums up everything that's wrong with this debate here. Copyright gets painted as this thing that serves only big businesses at the expense of the poor joe in the street who just wants to get some music off the net.
I don't see what's ridiculous about creating a respectable window of opportunity for rightsholders to monetize a work, and then making an incentive for them to create more.
The primary purpose of the copyright system is to create expired copyrights, not wealthy rightsholders.
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;Expansion of the public domain -- the body of science and useful arts common to us all -- is indeed the goal of copyright. It says so right there on the label of the box it came in.
-- Article I Section 8, United States Constitution
"Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."We can at least agree that there is rampant disregard for the law. Whether that law is fair and just is another matter. The powers that be choose not to enforce the law in the overwhelming majority of cases. If they did so, they would confront a beast that could destroy the status quo, and that's not something they're willing to risk. So it is what it is: the system stands, we don't like it, but defending it as just and going through contortions to equate it to something that is socially much less acceptable does a disservice to our capacity for understanding.
The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods.Where he says that he is only talking about a specific section of law, and that there is a distinct difference between the thing stolen and some other thing derived from it. Just because there is not yet a legal precedent for filesharing doesn't mean that it isn't a form of theft.
posted by dunkadunc at 12:22 AM on December 13, 2009