Since we've started communicating I've been doing more reading on this issue. While I stick with my "fundamentalist" thinking about the law (never been called that before;-) I've got to agree that the RIAA's tactics are heavy-handed to say the least.
There seems to have been a backlash growing against the RIAA. I wonder when it will achieve critical mass and have some positive effect.
Cheers,
DC
I don't disagree that their number is high. I'm not defending it. It is nothing more than a negotiation opener. If a person facing such a claim doesn't like it, don't pay it and wait for them to make the next move. You can do the same thing with the IRS if you're so inclined.
But the notion that... if at some point in time you hadn't or wouldn't form an intention to purchase something but later on you steal it... doesn't mean that they haven't suffered a commercial loss. The burden is on them to prove it. But lost business opportunity is a head of damage that is well-established in the law. Using their property in a manner that is inconsistent with their ownership interest is stealing, despite what your home-spun definition suggests.
That they have a commercial loss and the value of the loss are two distinct issues. Both must be proved.
Fair is that people that create intellectual property should be compensated for it -- and it happens to be the law. That applies to computer programs as well as music and movies.
That the "poor" MIT student was told to quit school is a red herring.
One's right to appropriate someone's property without compensation is no greater because they can't afford it.
DC
Slashdot Mirror
Since we've started communicating I've been doing more reading on this issue. While I stick with my "fundamentalist" thinking about the law (never been called that before ;-) I've got to agree that the RIAA's tactics are heavy-handed to say the least.
There seems to have been a backlash growing against the RIAA. I wonder when it will achieve critical mass and have some positive effect.
Cheers,
DC
The fundamental BS part is ... what?
... if at some point in time you hadn't or wouldn't form an intention to purchase something but later on you steal it ... doesn't mean that they haven't suffered a commercial loss. The burden is on them to prove it. But lost business opportunity is a head of damage that is well-established in the law. Using their property in a manner that is inconsistent with their ownership interest is stealing, despite what your home-spun definition suggests.
I don't disagree that their number is high. I'm not defending it. It is nothing more than a negotiation opener. If a person facing such a claim doesn't like it, don't pay it and wait for them to make the next move. You can do the same thing with the IRS if you're so inclined.
But the notion that
That they have a commercial loss and the value of the loss are two distinct issues. Both must be proved.
DC
Fair is that people that create intellectual property should be compensated for it -- and it happens to be the law. That applies to computer programs as well as music and movies. That the "poor" MIT student was told to quit school is a red herring. One's right to appropriate someone's property without compensation is no greater because they can't afford it. DC