And once it's you, then they'll be listening carefully to make sure you don't say anything anti-American, or better yet, something against the government. Because really, there's a *big* difference between being an enemy of the people, and an enemy of the government. Expose a corrupt government for what it is on the 6 o'clock news
Or even one public official.
and you're an enemy of the government but a hero to the people and the press.
Conversely you can find people and groups who no threat to/friends of government and/or government officials whilst being a serious menace to the interests, livelyhoods, even lives of most members of the public.
Here's the problem...the phrase "Americans that the government is suspicious of", can (and is) defined differently every day.
Which dosn't imply that they pose any risk to ordinary people. Indeed people who are seriously dangerous to the public end up being specifically excluded.
Notice that the question isn't about 'wiretapping whomever the president decides he doesn't like' or even about 'wiretapping without appropriate judicial oversight'. It's 'wiretapping in order to reduce the threat of terrorism'.
Whichever, there is unlikely to be much effort put into protecting anyone from terrorists the US President approves of. (Even if the US Government does not provide them with actual support.)
Now, with this pervasive surveillence culture - various government agencies are even more overloaded with "intel" but they still lack the means to shift through it and find useful information. In fact, because of the increase in data, it is now harder to find the useful information buried within the noise.
With pervasive surveillence it can also be fairly easy for "bad guys" to add more noise. The information being gathered is potentially of more use to criminals than law enforcers anyway.
I went to the NSA's web site to see the list of people they are currently spying on, but for some reason it wasn't posted. As soon as they post the list I will get back to you about which people on it are innocent.
More interesting would be the list of people who probably should be being spied on who are not. Along with the list of the people doing the spying who probably should be being spied on... The concept of a "warrent" is ment to somewhat address the question of "who watches the watchers".
You're assuming the evidence is to be used solely in a courtroom. There are many possible (mis)uses for peoples' private information that have nothing to do with presenting them to a jury.
It's a variation on the "people who havn't done anything wrong have nothing to fear". Which is a flawed idea since it assumes that those doing the spying are all absolutly honest and that the "wolf in sheep's clothing" is only ever a paranoid fantasy...
This is a heads up to anyone paying attention that Bush's people are off the reservation,
Left to their own devices governments and government officials will tend to protect their own interests.
and are spying on peolpe other than terrorists - or that their definition of "terrorist" is becoming something that would surprise you.
That's even after considering that "Mainstream Media" definition "terrorist" is typically full of double standards. (Especially in the cases individuals and groups being called just about anything else, dispite their actions. Because of either their stated goals or even simply who they are.) If history is any guide, the targets are more likely to be political opposition before politically incorrect terrorists.
Trivially easy?
Do you manage many Active Directory servers?
The ones I know about (in a EU wide bank) are a mess, and require an entire team of people just to let them run. And even so it is very simple to screw them up.
When it comes to getting AD into a mess all you need is "servers" (i.e plural).
AD is NOT easy. Clicking on "Share this folder" might look so, but managing AD is not.
A common problem with GUI interfaces to severs is that they may it quite easy for people to change something when they don't understand the consequences of whatever it is they are changing.
You see I discovered something about Windows and SMB. Windows Cached its passwords.
Windows caches all sorts of things. You can quite easily find profile paths (both network and local) along with SIDs relating to users who have logged in to the machine scattered all over the registry. Even if you tell it not to retain locally cached profiles it sometimes leaves them around.
Not harmed financially? If he was harmed as much as $1, he can sue and get into punitive damage territory.
IIRC damages for copyright infringement are technically not "putitive".
If copies were given to MPAA staffers, those staffers will not need to see the movie in the theater or buy it on DVD, since they already have a copy, that is all it takes. IANAL.
When it comes to file sharing the MPAA dosn't base their claims on the price of a DVD or movie ticket. (In the same way that the RIAA dosn't use the price of a CD or concert ticket as a metric.) It might cost a large organisation quite a bit to be sued (by a LIP) for a moderate amount though. e.g. number of MPAA "staffers" times average retail of a DVD in this case. So long as it would be considered a "small claim".
However, can't it be purely mechanical in nature such that each push trips a different circuit? Some kind of mechanical rotating circuit connection that flips with each button push and has three different settings: connected to a circuit that turns it on, connected to a circuit that puts the system in standby and connected to a circuit that means truly off.
Such a mechanical switch needs to have contacts for both low voltage and mains. With sufficent isolation between its contacts and a way to stop the wrong contacts being used for the wrong voltage. Thus you have something quite complex. There is also the problem of spark errosion on the contacts when switching mains, especially with inductive loads.
I don't understand why devices don't have two power supplies. The one to run the power switch hardware could be so minimal it's not even funny! Let's see, two diodes, a little bitty transformer, a regulator IC, and two capacitors...
Even simpler the standby circuit can be a battery. A small transformer based PSU is still likely to waste more power than it needs to supply. A "solid state relay" needs only a few mA to operate. You'd just need a bit of logic to prevent draining the battery should there not be any mains present.
For video recorders or other equipment that need to keep track of time this is not such a nice idea. I don't want to set the time on my video every time after I put it off.
In which case it needs a backup power supply (battery, even a large capacitor) which will keep the clock and any essential data backed up when the power is removed. In exactly the same way which is done with a computer...
I suspect actually that what is being angled for here is either UK or European legislation that would prohibit equipment from having a standby button, and mandates hard on/off switches.
Might make more sense to ban the sale of incandescent lamps.
Personally, I am sufficiently concerned by global warming to support such a move though I'm a a pretty big offender when it comes to leaving the TV on standby.
Waste heat from electrical appliances is most of a problem when buildings need cooling.
If forced I am sure manufacturers could easily change things so standby mode relied on a battery and non-volatile memory.
As opposed to some VCRs that keep all of their settings in volatile memory. Even though a battery backed memory module, including a real time clock is hardly a difficult to find component. It really is a bit much to expect people to buy UPSs for domestic appliances because someone couldn't be bothered to put the equivalent of a wrist watch into something they decided needed a clock.
The only issue would be with those 'legacy' CRTs (vacuum tube filaments need to stay warm)
Only if someone can't wait for a few seconds, unless you have some really old hardware, in which case you should probably be thankful it still works at all.
Whatever the copyright law, jurors are not going to be very sympathetic to the RIAA and its associated minions if they sue someone that's owns the vinyl version. If they own say the vinyl version and an old eight-track, or cassette of the same album they're jurors are going to view the fat-cats as rapacious $#*@&!*s, and find against the plaintiff.
Juries have the power to effectivly judge the law as well as the case in question through "jury nullification". The RIAA/MPAA/etc appear to be using lawsuits as a method of extortion. They don't appear too keen of the cases actually comming before any court (let alone one where a jury is involved).
What makes you think the proof-readers in India lack the above qualifications? English is the main language used for official communication in India (unlike other countries like China, Japan, etc.), and the people doing these types of jobs, probably have had all their education in English.
The law shouldn't stiffle technology to keep an industry alive.
Regardless of if that industry is ice cutting, buggy whip making or the record industry. Ironically legal constructs intended to promote technological innovation are being used to stiffle it.
The entire industry has to adapt not because people are thieves, but people will always use their easiest convienience - ironically that is something the megacorps/retail chains have been drilling into peoples heads for many years.
Only on their own terms though. Look how much fuss they make when people doing this works to the disadvantage of large corporations. You see similar things with "globalization", it's fine for a manufacturer to pick somewhere with cheap labour for a factory, but how dare someone (from a rich country) try to buy finished goods from wherever is selling them at the cheapest price on the planet.
Given the convenience of the CD, and the quality of the sound folks bought into the audio CD with a vengeance. They started replacing their music collection which had been on vinyl with CDs. This caused the recording corporations to reap a windfall, without having to develop new artist, paying for new albums etc.. About the time that the internet, especially broadband, got cranked up and really going the folks that were updating their music libraries to CD got caught up. Thereby causing a dip in CD sales. This was inevitable.
Another thing which happened around the same time was that CD recorders became commonplace. Thus even if someone hadn't "caught up" they could convert their records into CDs. To many people convenience of useage is more of an issue than "quality". Alternativly they could download MP3s of the music they already had on vinyl, whatever the letter of copyright law might have to say about that.
Frequently we all see AntiPiracy Companies based in USA & UK bitching about loss of sales, pirating on the rise and how it adds to the cost.
Yet the sales and profits of the companies involved tell a different story... Some "pirates" wouldn't buy at the price being asked, some wouldn't buy even at cost price. In these cases there was never any potential sale to lose in the first place.
The same Anti-Piracy Ranting and Raving has been going on for the last 10 years.
It started well before 1996. Just that the words and the "machine of all evil" has changed over the last few decades.
Also if Movie companies want to make more money on sales and get more people to watch it instead of downloading pirate verisons . OFFER THE MOVIES WORLD WIDE the SAME DAY.
In many cases the companys distributing movies are large multinationals. It's most likely easier to do this for a movie than for a book, yet book publishers manage to do so. There's also a level of hypocracy in constant lobbying for "harmonization" of copyright laws, whilst at the same time allowing distributers to be able to arbitarily pick and choose where (and when) they are prepared to distribute.
The const flow of bullshit that USA market needs to make money 1st and then delay airing in UK, Australia, Euro, rest of the world is a big reason why people download movies.
If this were the case then shouldn't movies have the highest ticket prices in the USA?
Why watch it in local movies when you can download the DVD Screener, DVD Rip or SVCD TC ahead of time of the local movies.
Sometimes even before it would be released anywhere. The point of screeners appears at least partly to be to allow tame reviewers and awards panels to see finished movies before the "plebs". Which is also inconsistent with the idea of a movie needing to make back its production costs ASAP.
The same goes for TV Shows . Australia and UK are the biggest downloaders of tvshows (90% of them american made/air'ed).
Remember that "American made" often equates to "Made in Canada". Even with the USA recently getting the short end of the stick, e.g. Battlestar Galactica and Doctor Who, the MPAA dosn't appear to get it.
For Australian's for the last 10 years, its been always quicker to download and watch a tv show rather then wait for it to show here a half a season too 2 seasons behind( 3 months to a year)
Australians get a very raw deal. With it possibly being quicker to send things across the Pacific in a leaky rowing boat! With this still going on after Australia has messed up their own laws in the name of a "Free Trade Agreement" with the USA.
Downloading the show comes down in HDTV format, without ads, only uses 360 meg of data per ep, correct airing order and far ahead of local airing)
Typically within less that 24 hours of the programme airing anywhere on the planet. Possibly quicker than flying an airliner, with recording equiptment, to record the broadcast and bring the recording home.
A good recording session (8 songs average) costs the band US$12000. Producing 10,000 CDs 4color is US$8000. $2/CD cost. The physical CD has value.
Now copying the CD to another copy has little cost.
If it's possible to make a copy of a CD on a "one at a time" basis which is as functional as the original for less money than you want to sell it at things get interesting. (If it becomes possible to create such a copy for less than it costs you to produce the original then your supplier is ripping you off.) In the case of sound recordings they are more functional as computer files than on CDs.
You're selling the official CD, so you're asking for more money with the end user understanding that the additional price is going to help the band make more music.
In many cases that isn't the case, due to the strange accounting practices of the record industry.
However, most feel that their work should be protected and they should get some sort of compensation from it (a perfectly justifable argument. Can't make much music if you're starving)
Why should people get compensation for their "work" just because there are musicans? Should people be compensated for doing "work" even if nobody else could care less about their work? That would be like paying people, who like digging holes, if they spend all day digging holes on their own land. There's also nothing that says a musician can't have a "day job". Someone being able to support themselves entirely as a musician tends to rely on both talent and luck. The idea of royalties is somewhat questionable. It would be like if people were excepted to tip architects and builders every time they entered a building
however, what is more true is that the model of low marginal cost of production applies for virtually ALL industries from CPUs to newspapers to what-have-you and yet we far more rarely see the idiot economic justifications for piracy/theft in those areas that we see for music. i mean - if it basically doesnt cost AMD anything to build the 10,000,000 th CPU (as is the case), shouldnt it be ok to steal one and maybe mail them a dollar or two for the actual marginal cost?
Your counter examples are all physical artifacts. There is a real cost involved in making them. With a CPU the marginal cost is that of getting the raw materials to a factory, operating the factory, testing the product, packaging and shipping the finished CPU. The marginal cost is most definitly non zero and needs to be paid up front by the manufacturer long before they get any revenue from a sale. With newspapers there is the additional complication that the product is time sensitive and product which isn't sold within a short time must be recycled or disposed of. When people share music over the internet they are using machines and communication bandwidth they pay for. Trying to compare this situation with the economics of a secondary industry makes no sense.
Slashdot Mirror
And once it's you, then they'll be listening carefully to make sure you don't say anything anti-American, or better yet, something against the government. Because really, there's a *big* difference between being an enemy of the people, and an enemy of the government. Expose a corrupt government for what it is on the 6 o'clock news
Or even one public official.
and you're an enemy of the government but a hero to the people and the press.
Conversely you can find people and groups who no threat to/friends of government and/or government officials whilst being a serious menace to the interests, livelyhoods, even lives of most members of the public.
Here's the problem...the phrase "Americans that the government is suspicious of", can (and is) defined differently every day.
Which dosn't imply that they pose any risk to ordinary people. Indeed people who are seriously dangerous to the public end up being specifically excluded.
Notice that the question isn't about 'wiretapping whomever the president decides he doesn't like' or even about 'wiretapping without appropriate judicial oversight'. It's 'wiretapping in order to reduce the threat of terrorism'.
Whichever, there is unlikely to be much effort put into protecting anyone from terrorists the US President approves of. (Even if the US Government does not provide them with actual support.)
Now, with this pervasive surveillence culture - various government agencies are even more overloaded with "intel" but they still lack the means to shift through it and find useful information. In fact, because of the increase in data, it is now harder to find the useful information buried within the noise.
With pervasive surveillence it can also be fairly easy for "bad guys" to add more noise.
The information being gathered is potentially of more use to criminals than law enforcers anyway.
I went to the NSA's web site to see the list of people they are currently spying on, but for some reason it wasn't posted. As soon as they post the list I will get back to you about which people on it are innocent.
More interesting would be the list of people who probably should be being spied on who are not. Along with the list of the people doing the spying who probably should be being spied on...
The concept of a "warrent" is ment to somewhat address the question of "who watches the watchers".
You're assuming the evidence is to be used solely in a courtroom. There are many possible (mis)uses for peoples' private information that have nothing to do with presenting them to a jury.
It's a variation on the "people who havn't done anything wrong have nothing to fear". Which is a flawed idea since it assumes that those doing the spying are all absolutly honest and that the "wolf in sheep's clothing" is only ever a paranoid fantasy...
This is a heads up to anyone paying attention that Bush's people are off the reservation,
Left to their own devices governments and government officials will tend to protect their own interests.
and are spying on peolpe other than terrorists - or that their definition of "terrorist" is becoming something that would surprise you.
That's even after considering that "Mainstream Media" definition "terrorist" is typically full of double standards. (Especially in the cases individuals and groups being called just about anything else, dispite their actions. Because of either their stated goals or even simply who they are.)
If history is any guide, the targets are more likely to be political opposition before politically incorrect terrorists.
Trivially easy?
Do you manage many Active Directory servers?
The ones I know about (in a EU wide bank) are a mess, and require an entire team of people just to let them run. And even so it is very simple to screw them up.
When it comes to getting AD into a mess all you need is "servers" (i.e plural).
AD is NOT easy. Clicking on "Share this folder" might look so, but managing AD is not.
A common problem with GUI interfaces to severs is that they may it quite easy for people to change something when they don't understand the consequences of whatever it is they are changing.
You see I discovered something about Windows and SMB. Windows Cached its passwords.
Windows caches all sorts of things. You can quite easily find profile paths (both network and local) along with SIDs relating to users who have logged in to the machine scattered all over the registry. Even if you tell it not to retain locally cached profiles it sometimes leaves them around.
You're right; the biggest problem most people seem to have with Samba is understanding user v's share security.
This isn't that different from Windows servers.
Not harmed financially? If he was harmed as much as $1, he can sue and get into punitive damage territory.
IIRC damages for copyright infringement are technically not "putitive".
If copies were given to MPAA staffers, those staffers will not need to see the movie in the theater or buy it on DVD, since they already have a copy, that is all it takes. IANAL.
When it comes to file sharing the MPAA dosn't base their claims on the price of a DVD or movie ticket. (In the same way that the RIAA dosn't use the price of a CD or concert ticket as a metric.)
It might cost a large organisation quite a bit to be sued (by a LIP) for a moderate amount though. e.g. number of MPAA "staffers" times average retail of a DVD in this case. So long as it would be considered a "small claim".
However, can't it be purely mechanical in nature such that each push trips a different circuit? Some kind of mechanical rotating circuit connection that flips with each button push and has three different settings: connected to a circuit that turns it on, connected to a circuit that puts the system in standby and connected to a circuit that means truly off.
Such a mechanical switch needs to have contacts for both low voltage and mains. With sufficent isolation between its contacts and a way to stop the wrong contacts being used for the wrong voltage. Thus you have something quite complex. There is also the problem of spark errosion on the contacts when switching mains, especially with inductive loads.
I don't understand why devices don't have two power supplies. The one to run the power switch hardware could be so minimal it's not even funny! Let's see, two diodes, a little bitty transformer, a regulator IC, and two capacitors...
Even simpler the standby circuit can be a battery. A small transformer based PSU is still likely to waste more power than it needs to supply. A "solid state relay" needs only a few mA to operate. You'd just need a bit of logic to prevent draining the battery should there not be any mains present.
For video recorders or other equipment that need to keep track of time this is not such a nice idea. I don't want to set the time on my video every time after I put it off.
In which case it needs a backup power supply (battery, even a large capacitor) which will keep the clock and any essential data backed up when the power is removed. In exactly the same way which is done with a computer...
In fact, why not put in all in the same button so that one push turns it on, the next puts it in standby and the next really turns it off.
You'd need need to have a power control circuit with a (rechargable) battery supply capable of powering a relay to control the mains supply.
I suspect actually that what is being angled for here is either UK or European legislation that would prohibit equipment from having a standby button, and mandates hard on/off switches.
Might make more sense to ban the sale of incandescent lamps.
Personally, I am sufficiently concerned by global warming to support such a move though I'm a a pretty big offender when it comes to leaving the TV on standby.
Waste heat from electrical appliances is most of a problem when buildings need cooling.
If forced I am sure manufacturers could easily change things so standby mode relied on a battery and non-volatile memory.
As opposed to some VCRs that keep all of their settings in volatile memory. Even though a battery backed memory module, including a real time clock is hardly a difficult to find component. It really is a bit much to expect people to buy UPSs for domestic appliances because someone couldn't be bothered to put the equivalent of a wrist watch into something they decided needed a clock.
The only issue would be with those 'legacy' CRTs (vacuum tube filaments need to stay warm)
Only if someone can't wait for a few seconds, unless you have some really old hardware, in which case you should probably be thankful it still works at all.
Whatever the copyright law, jurors are not going to be very sympathetic to the RIAA and its associated minions if they sue someone that's owns the vinyl version. If they own say the vinyl version and an old eight-track, or cassette of the same album they're jurors are going to view the fat-cats as rapacious $#*@&!*s, and find against the plaintiff.
Juries have the power to effectivly judge the law as well as the case in question through "jury nullification". The RIAA/MPAA/etc appear to be using lawsuits as a method of extortion. They don't appear too keen of the cases actually comming before any court (let alone one where a jury is involved).
What makes you think the proof-readers in India lack the above qualifications? English is the main language used for official communication in India (unlike other countries like China, Japan, etc.), and the people doing these types of jobs, probably have had all their education in English.
How many Indians understand US dialect and idiom?
I wonder how many people 40 and older just wouldn't understand a world where it's free to copy music for non-commercial use.
Would people stop making music? Never!
People have been making music for thousands of years before the idea of copyright was though of at all.
Would artists starve or be deprived of money? Not if they're willing to perform live.
Or they had a "day job". Performing only in the day Monday-Friday would tend to exclude many potential audiance members.
Wouldn't it change the face of music? No superstars will still have huge concerts.
Some of the names might change.
Would music cease to be distributed? No, that's what we have the internet for.
As well as physical media.
The law shouldn't stiffle technology to keep an industry alive.
Regardless of if that industry is ice cutting, buggy whip making or the record industry.
Ironically legal constructs intended to promote technological innovation are being used to stiffle it.
The entire industry has to adapt not because people are thieves, but people will always use their easiest convienience - ironically that is something the megacorps/retail chains have been drilling into peoples heads for many years.
Only on their own terms though. Look how much fuss they make when people doing this works to the disadvantage of large corporations. You see similar things with "globalization", it's fine for a manufacturer to pick somewhere with cheap labour for a factory, but how dare someone (from a rich country) try to buy finished goods from wherever is selling them at the cheapest price on the planet.
Given the convenience of the CD, and the quality of the sound folks bought into the audio CD with a vengeance. They started replacing their music collection which had been on vinyl with CDs. This caused the recording corporations to reap a windfall, without having to develop new artist, paying for new albums etc.. About the time that the internet, especially broadband, got cranked up and really going the folks that were updating their music libraries to CD got caught up. Thereby causing a dip in CD sales. This was inevitable.
Another thing which happened around the same time was that CD recorders became commonplace. Thus even if someone hadn't "caught up" they could convert their records into CDs. To many people convenience of useage is more of an issue than "quality". Alternativly they could download MP3s of the music they already had on vinyl, whatever the letter of copyright law might have to say about that.
Frequently we all see AntiPiracy Companies based in USA & UK bitching about loss of sales, pirating on the rise and how it adds to the cost.
.
.
Yet the sales and profits of the companies involved tell a different story...
Some "pirates" wouldn't buy at the price being asked, some wouldn't buy even at cost price. In these cases there was never any potential sale to lose in the first place.
The same Anti-Piracy Ranting and Raving has been going on for the last 10 years
It started well before 1996. Just that the words and the "machine of all evil" has changed over the last few decades.
Also if Movie companies want to make more money on sales and get more people to watch it instead of downloading pirate verisons . OFFER THE MOVIES WORLD WIDE the SAME DAY.
In many cases the companys distributing movies are large multinationals. It's most likely easier to do this for a movie than for a book, yet book publishers manage to do so. There's also a level of hypocracy in constant lobbying for "harmonization" of copyright laws, whilst at the same time allowing distributers to be able to arbitarily pick and choose where (and when) they are prepared to distribute.
The const flow of bullshit that USA market needs to make money 1st and then delay airing in UK, Australia, Euro, rest of the world is a big reason why people download movies
If this were the case then shouldn't movies have the highest ticket prices in the USA?
Why watch it in local movies when you can download the DVD Screener, DVD Rip or SVCD TC ahead of time of the local movies.
Sometimes even before it would be released anywhere. The point of screeners appears at least partly to be to allow tame reviewers and awards panels to see finished movies before the "plebs". Which is also inconsistent with the idea of a movie needing to make back its production costs ASAP.
The same goes for TV Shows . Australia and UK are the biggest downloaders of tvshows (90% of them american made/air'ed).
Remember that "American made" often equates to "Made in Canada". Even with the USA recently getting the short end of the stick, e.g. Battlestar Galactica and Doctor Who, the MPAA dosn't appear to get it.
For Australian's for the last 10 years, its been always quicker to download and watch a tv show rather then wait for it to show here a half a season too 2 seasons behind( 3 months to a year)
Australians get a very raw deal. With it possibly being quicker to send things across the Pacific in a leaky rowing boat! With this still going on after Australia has messed up their own laws in the name of a "Free Trade Agreement" with the USA.
Downloading the show comes down in HDTV format, without ads, only uses 360 meg of data per ep, correct airing order and far ahead of local airing)
Typically within less that 24 hours of the programme airing anywhere on the planet. Possibly quicker than flying an airliner, with recording equiptment, to record the broadcast and bring the recording home.
A good recording session (8 songs average) costs the band US$12000. Producing 10,000 CDs 4color is US$8000. $2/CD cost. The physical CD has value.
Now copying the CD to another copy has little cost.
If it's possible to make a copy of a CD on a "one at a time" basis which is as functional as the original for less money than you want to sell it at things get interesting. (If it becomes possible to create such a copy for less than it costs you to produce the original then your supplier is ripping you off.) In the case of sound recordings they are more functional as computer files than on CDs.
You're selling the official CD, so you're asking for more money with the end user understanding that the additional price is going to help the band make more music.
In many cases that isn't the case, due to the strange accounting practices of the record industry.
However, most feel that their work should be protected and they should get some sort of compensation from it (a perfectly justifable argument. Can't make much music if you're starving)
Why should people get compensation for their "work" just because there are musicans? Should people be compensated for doing "work" even if nobody else could care less about their work? That would be like paying people, who like digging holes, if they spend all day digging holes on their own land.
There's also nothing that says a musician can't have a "day job". Someone being able to support themselves entirely as a musician tends to rely on both talent and luck.
The idea of royalties is somewhat questionable. It would be like if people were excepted to tip architects and builders every time they entered a building
however, what is more true is that the model of low marginal cost of production applies for virtually ALL industries from CPUs to newspapers to what-have-you and yet we far more rarely see the idiot economic justifications for piracy/theft in those areas that we see for music. i mean - if it basically doesnt cost AMD anything to build the 10,000,000 th CPU (as is the case), shouldnt it be ok to steal one and maybe mail them a dollar or two for the actual marginal cost?
Your counter examples are all physical artifacts. There is a real cost involved in making them. With a CPU the marginal cost is that of getting the raw materials to a factory, operating the factory, testing the product, packaging and shipping the finished CPU. The marginal cost is most definitly non zero and needs to be paid up front by the manufacturer long before they get any revenue from a sale. With newspapers there is the additional complication that the product is time sensitive and product which isn't sold within a short time must be recycled or disposed of.
When people share music over the internet they are using machines and communication bandwidth they pay for.
Trying to compare this situation with the economics of a secondary industry makes no sense.