|
You pitched your argument that file sharing is theft by proclaiming that any rebuttal is "justification". Do you really want to do that?
It's like saying "I'm right, and any other opinion is wrong." And since "justification" is a term with psychological baggage, it's the "Bad and Mad" argument. In other words, it's a dishonest argument.
My contention that file sharing is not theft goes far beyond the idea that the artist deserves compensation. The artist DOES deserve compensation, but BY LAW, receives very low compensation for phonorecords (CDs, vinyl, tapes, or computer files) and similar embodiments of art. Courtney Love testified about this a few years ago, backed by the EFF, and laid out a very strong case; George Michael and Prince established that artists' contracts to the recoding companies have been quasi-legal forms of slavery.
Then we could add the body of case law already on the books concerning the rental of videos and the sales of magnetic recording media. Many of these issues had already been settled.
The way the laws are being re-written, the Internet is fast becoming a playground filled with broken glass, used syringes, sharp metal and poisonous bugs. The Industry had two choices: Either improve their business model, or invest money to have the laws written that they want.
And you know which one they chose.
In other words, the entertainment companies are engaged in illegal market manipulation, depending on Big Gummint to protect the rights that they should be protecting themselves (under 500 years of common law), making file auditing (for self-protection) impossible, and worst of all, practicing "Moral Entreprenuring" by selling us on the morals they want us to have.
There is more detail I could add, too; small nuances of law that I only learned about by reading up on it myself. Because I, too, am a "creative artist", and I'm currently looking at ways to generate cashflow without turning any of my potential fans into felons.
Being concerned about the propriety of data objects and their ownership is exemplary, but I sense that you've tried to figure out which thief in the prison is the least guilty. Data ownership started out murky, and has gotten murkier, all to allow a generation of corporate lawyers stay employed.
Initiating aggressive litigation against children, directly or by proxy, including holding them up to public ridicule, ought to be prosecuted as a civil rights violation, but our court system values children even less than phonorecords (currently pegged at 15 cents per item).
Deliberately promoting chaos and fear in order to make money, in my opinion, is by far the worst crime. As a "content provider", such a "market" would be a nightmare, returning total control over publication of all works of art to the entertainment companies.
The business model of the future is to have an ISP surcharge or subscriber charge that does not limit downloading. The small marketing enterprises that have proven that it's extremely lucrative, even in a market dominated by anarchy. Just the improvement in quality control makes it worth while for most people.
Comcast (my ISP) has started on a small scale, and it looks promising. I will soon be able to buy "content" over cyberspace for much less money. So chances are I will buy much more of it. The artists will get audited micropayment compensation, but the cumulative amounts mean they will be paid better than they have been by selling physical product. I've spent plenty of money for phonorecords on all sorts of media, and am not a big-time Warez Pirate by any means. I can't recall the last time I DLed an unlicensed MP3.
The file sharing dilemma will not go away, and will only get worse, unless the entertainment companies give up on their fever dreams of controlling all aspects of their product. No law gives the vendor the right to dictate all aspects of product use, and no law should give business the right to enact and enforce its own laws and create public morality through advertising.
There is PLENTY of money to be made by going to as unobtrusive a distribution model as possible. Failure to do so will keep the pressure high -- and the profits low.
--p!
|