Boss: This is the DJ 3000. It plays CDs automatically, and it has three distinct varieties of inane chatter. [presses a button] DJ 3000: [stilted] Hey, hey. How about that weather out there? Woah! _That_ was the caller from hell. Well, hot dog! We have a weiner. Bill: Man, that thing's great! Marty: _Don't_ praise the machine! Boss: If you don't get that kid an elephant by tomorrow, the DJ 3000 gets your job. [Marty punches it] DJ 3000: Those clowns in congress did it again. What a bunch of clowns. Bill: [laughs] How does it keep up with the news like that?
While I respect your crusade to squelch all profitability from telemarketing, you have to weigh the good with the bad.
Being antagonistic towards telemarketers: GOOD: wastes telemarketing company's money, provides an incentive to do less telemarketing. BAD: wastes time of the individual telemarketer, unfairly targets a real person just trying to do their job and make some money.
Your positive impact on the ultimate amount of telemarketing that occurs is small or negligible, but your negative impact on individual telemarketers is much higher.
BTW, ever notice that few people would treat telemarketers with the same disrespect if they were face-to-face with them? Something about talking over the phone makes it easier to ignore that they are human too.
So if I hire someone to perform a service, and refuse to pay them, haven't I stolen from them? Guess what, the RIAA labels are selling a service, the distribution of a copyrighted song.
Absolutely. The key is, however, that no one has hired the record industry to provide this service. Just like any other service in a free market, a company offers it at a certain price and hopes that consumers will buy their service at that price.
If Bill Jones starts up Bill's Carpet Cleaners, invests $20K on cleaning equipment, chemicals, trucks, etc., charges $4000 per clean, and gets no customers, have those customers stolen from Bill? No way. They simply refused the service at his outrageous price.
The distribution of copyrighted material is similar. Let's first imagine a world with no commercially available technology for reproducing copyrighted music. No filesharing, no copying from a friend or the radio. Now Britney Spears puts out a new record for $15, and it sells only one copy. Has she been robbed? Has anyone stolen from her? No. They refused to pay that price for her service.
In our world (with technology for reproducing copyrighted music), the fundamental argument has not changed. Let's say, again, that Britney Spears releases a record, and it sells one copy. However, 2000 digital reproductions of the record are downloaded for free over KazaA. Let's say that 1800 out of the 2000 people who downloaded the album would NOT have bought it had it not been available online for free. They have not stolen from Britney Spears, because reproduction of digital music is FREE. If they hadn't downloaded the album, she wouldn't have gotten any more money.
The remaining 200 people, however, have stolen from Britney. They would have bought the record for $15 but chose not to.
Slashdot Mirror
Your Wedding Falls Square in the Middle of the Prisoner Marathon
root/.workspace/.garbage.
Turn on your laptop. Set it to receive a file.
Boss: This is the DJ 3000. It plays CDs automatically, and it has three distinct varieties of inane chatter. [presses a button]
DJ 3000: [stilted] Hey, hey. How about that weather out there? Woah! _That_ was the caller from hell. Well, hot dog! We have a weiner.
Bill: Man, that thing's great!
Marty: _Don't_ praise the machine!
Boss: If you don't get that kid an elephant by tomorrow, the DJ 3000
gets your job.
[Marty punches it]
DJ 3000: Those clowns in congress did it again. What a bunch of clowns.
Bill: [laughs] How does it keep up with the news like that?
While I respect your crusade to squelch all profitability from telemarketing, you have to weigh the good with the bad.
Being antagonistic towards telemarketers:
GOOD: wastes telemarketing company's money, provides an incentive to do less telemarketing.
BAD: wastes time of the individual telemarketer, unfairly targets a real person just trying to do their job and make some money.
Your positive impact on the ultimate amount of telemarketing that occurs is small or negligible, but your negative impact on individual telemarketers is much higher.
BTW, ever notice that few people would treat telemarketers with the same disrespect if they were face-to-face with them? Something about talking over the phone makes it easier to ignore that they are human too.
So if I hire someone to perform a service, and refuse to pay them, haven't I stolen from them? Guess what, the RIAA labels are selling a service, the distribution of a copyrighted song.
Absolutely. The key is, however, that no one has hired the record industry to provide this service. Just like any other service in a free market, a company offers it at a certain price and hopes that consumers will buy their service at that price.
If Bill Jones starts up Bill's Carpet Cleaners, invests $20K on cleaning equipment, chemicals, trucks, etc., charges $4000 per clean, and gets no customers, have those customers stolen from Bill? No way. They simply refused the service at his outrageous price.
The distribution of copyrighted material is similar. Let's first imagine a world with no commercially available technology for reproducing copyrighted music. No filesharing, no copying from a friend or the radio. Now Britney Spears puts out a new record for $15, and it sells only one copy. Has she been robbed? Has anyone stolen from her? No. They refused to pay that price for her service.
In our world (with technology for reproducing copyrighted music), the fundamental argument has not changed. Let's say, again, that Britney Spears releases a record, and it sells one copy. However, 2000 digital reproductions of the record are downloaded for free over KazaA. Let's say that 1800 out of the 2000 people who downloaded the album would NOT have bought it had it not been available online for free. They have not stolen from Britney Spears, because reproduction of digital music is FREE. If they hadn't downloaded the album, she wouldn't have gotten any more money.
The remaining 200 people, however, have stolen from Britney. They would have bought the record for $15 but chose not to.