David Coursey Trolling Again
from the is-he-that-desparate? dept
Over at ZDNet, David Coursey's columns have been consistently ridiculous lately. He makes outrageous claims and then sits back and laughs while the traffic comes in from angry readers. He adds nothing to what might be a very interesting debate with his latest piece, which almost defies all logic. He basically spits on anyone who ever worked at Napster saying that they deserve to have lost their jobs because they were helping people steal music. Let's try this lesson one more time: file sharing is NOT stealing. To steal something, the owner has to be missing something after you've stolen it. Of course, the hypocrite Coursey then goes on to point out that he's been known to use some of these file-trading programs but it's okay because now he's joined the ridiculous music label attempt PressPlay - as if that absolves him from what he considers to be the pure evil that everyone else is involved in. Next, he's going to be telling us that we're stealing from him when we stop reading his column, thus preventing CNET from selling ads for that page, and (hopefully) firing him and moving on to some columnist that actually has something useful to say.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
fine line
It is a fine line, but currently the law is clear. If the law is wrong, it should be changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fine line
If that's true, then you're legislating business models. I think that's a huge mistake. You're basically saying that the music labels have an innate right to their business model.
What if there were a store selling clothing, and I opened up a store directly next to it selling the same clothing... cheaper. Should I get in trouble for depriving the owner of compensation?
It is a fine line, but currently the law is clear. If the law is wrong, it should be changed
The law should be changed - but if you hadn't noticed, it's pretty clear that we've got a lot of idiots working on our legislation right now. However, I don't think the law is as clear as you seem to think it is. We do have fair use rights. There is simply a question as to whether or not this is really fair use rights or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fine line
No, I'm saying that under the current legislation, copying of intellectual property is at the will and terms of the copyright holder. Just because it costs the copyright holder nothing for you to have a copy does not mean that the copyright holder is under any obligation to sell/give/turn-a-blind-eye-while-you-make one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Changing the rules...
However, that's not what happens in file sharing. It costs nearly nothing (at least maginal costs are nearly nothing, assuming you didn't get a computer and internet connection specifically for file swaping), and doesn't affect the original in any way. Just how much money should you be able to make from a good with a near zero marginal cost of production and no scarcity?
I think that the rules have fundamentally changed in the industry and the common conceptions of how producer compensation have to change also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get a Grip
"To steal something, the owner has to be
missing something after you've stolen it."
If someone renders you a service that requires
no materials, e.g. do your taxes, represent you
in court, give you a musical concert, ..., and
you arbitrarily decide you should not pay them
for services rendered -- that's not theft?
The arguments of the Napster defenders often
seem as dubious as the other side's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get a Grip
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gettin' that Grip
For the record, I have never used Napster or any other sharing service. I love my MP3 players, but I own the CD for every single track on them (gigs worth). I don't have the answer here, I'm just trying to figure out the problem. Maybe the technology is such that there is no effective model to make money on digital entertainment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gettin' that Grip
I'd also like to state for the record that I don't own a single MP3 for music that I don't have. I used Napster a few times way back when and used it to listen to some songs of bands I was interested in, or other bands that people recommended. The ones I liked, I ended up buying the CDs (often used CDs - which, according to some of you might be just as bad, yes?). The ones I didn't like I deleted.
I'm not defending this because I want free music. I'm defending it, because economically speaking, those who claim it's the same thing as "theft" are wrong. Maybe it's something else that needs an entirely new term... but I'm not even sure about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gettin' that Grip
is copyrighted, then the information, not the
material, is what the law protects.
Suppose someone buys one copy of a copyrighted
book, photocopies it N times and then gives away
the copies. Accepting a copy would be illegal,
even though there is no binding contract between
the author and the book copy recipients. So by
violating copyright law you can be a thief, even
if you are an ignorant one who didn't understand
the relevant laws.
There are two contracts involved in the case. One
between the author and the state, where the latter
has agreed to protect the former. The second is
the implied "social contract" between citizen and
state, whereby the former agrees not to break the
laws. So the whole thing comes down to one of
respecting the law or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gettin' that Grip
My argument is that they should be considered fair use, and part (yes, only part) of the reason why, is that it's not theft - which is what the basic economics are intended to show. I think people who say it's outright "theft" are being misleading and that's what I'm standing up to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gettin' that Grip
that you are allowed to quote a small portion
of a copyrighted work in your own work. If you
use more than a small portion, not even the whole
thing, then you can be in violation. If you
quote the entire piece, there's no question that
you're doing something illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gettin' that Grip
The question becomes what happens when that "copy" is somehow left open for others to copy as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Game is Changing
It's easy to say that people who "share" copyrighted works are encouraging people to go out and buy what they like. The fact is, relying on inidividuals to do the "right thing" invites abuse. This is exacerbated by the fact that most people don't feel they are doing anything wrong.
It's also easy to demonize the industry giants who are proposing such draconian measures as the DMCA. However, behind the scenes is an entire industry of hard-working, creative people who rely on copyrights to earn a living.
Unfortunately, there's no good answer. I am convinced that this entire predicament is a failure by the market to provide a solution that people will by into. That's how black markets get started.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have a question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this piracy?
What if during the recording, your mother yells to come for dinner, and it gets into the reconrding. Is that still theft?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this piracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why shouldn't music be FREE?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]