I was deeply conflicted about this problem for months since I've a long history with Usenet (been around it and on it since the mid 80s') and a great deal of respect for the system. I struggled with the situation for a long time.
What I found was that there was no *good* solution to be had to the problem, but there was a path of least disruption and damage to be followed and so I had to decide to go down that route. It wasn't a great route, but it seemed to me to be the only real one open.
"And, the comparison between a bookstore is just stupid. The owner of a bookstore has a book less to sell - if its stolen. He has PAID for THAT book. Penthouse doesn't lose anything if someone copies their picture. Its copied - not lost. You cannot call it theft, when you still have your copy intact."
Let's take a look at that.
You run a bookstore with (keeping it simple) only ten books for sale. You sell these books to people who come into your shop. One night, some guy goes into your shop and runs off perfect copies of these ten books. He then sets up a monster xerox machine on the sidewalk in front of your shop and hands out one or ten copies of these books to anybody passing by and to those who are starting to walk into your shop. And he's a really great guy because he's handing out copies of ALL your books for FREE! To everyone, customers, kids, cops, whoever shows up.
Meanwhile, you're sitting in your bookstore filling out checks for the rent, payroll, and checks to the publishers who sold you your ten books.
You telling me you're *not* gonna stroll out on the sidewalk and have a full and frank conversation with this bozo?
This "no gain, no blame" concept is not really what's happening in the real world.
What's problematic here is the real world collision between two key concepts:
Well, I tried to get Slashdot to take the ad but they thought it was too lame and, I guess, sort of insulting so they refused. I only ment it as a kind of homage, but everyone gets to run their site as they wish. So I turfed it over to deja. And it's not really a blatant violation of rights, it falls within the parody catagory -- even if it is a lame parody.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm here to tell you it wasn't. And I should know.
I was deeply conflicted about this problem for months since I've a long history with Usenet (been around it and on it since the mid 80s') and a great deal of respect for the system. I struggled with the situation for a long time.
What I found was that there was no *good* solution to be had to the problem, but there was a path of least disruption and damage to be followed and so I had to decide to go down that route. It wasn't a great route, but it seemed to me to be the only real one open.
Hard as it may be for you to believe, we actually are concerned about that.
It was when his wife got home that was not a pretty sight.
Let's take a look at that.
You run a bookstore with (keeping it simple) only ten books for sale. You sell these books to people who come into your shop. One night, some guy goes into your shop and runs off perfect copies of these ten books. He then sets up a monster xerox machine on the sidewalk in front of your shop and hands out one or ten copies of these books to anybody passing by and to those who are starting to walk into your shop. And he's a really great guy because he's handing out copies of ALL your books for FREE! To everyone, customers, kids, cops, whoever shows up.
Meanwhile, you're sitting in your bookstore filling out checks for the rent, payroll, and checks to the publishers who sold you your ten books.
You telling me you're *not* gonna stroll out on the sidewalk and have a full and frank conversation with this bozo?
This "no gain, no blame" concept is not really what's happening in the real world.
What's problematic here is the real world collision between two key concepts:
1. Information wants to be free.
2. People need to get paid.
We struggle to improve everyone's sex life one little post at a time.
Sn. Anonymous should know better that to believe everything he reads in the newspapers.
Well, I tried to get Slashdot to take the ad but they thought it was too lame and, I guess, sort of insulting so they refused. I only ment it as a kind of homage, but everyone gets to run their site as they wish. So I turfed it over to deja. And it's not really a blatant violation of rights, it falls within the parody catagory -- even if it is a lame parody.