Quote:
Originally posted by xenigo
All of these examples involve significant financial loss and are illegal because of the damage it creates. Having your picture passed around a million times by a bunch of freeloaders that would NEVER pay for it anyway isn't anything that would qualify as being a "loss".
So you want the government to create more laws against this type of thing? Do you really THINK a law is going to stop this from happening? Is a law going to stop me from walking next door and handing a disk to my neighbor? No. Or how about photocopying a Newsweek article for a friend at work? Do you think it would be such a wonderful thing for the government to then have permission to come slap the cuffs on you simply because you wanted to share something? Of course not.
I don't think we need to be giving the government any more reason to be violating our privacy, and be censoring what we can or cannot see, or do... or share with other people. That's absurd.
As long as someone else isn't profiting off the sweat of my labor, I have no problem with file sharing.
|
You don't think the illegal distribution of my content involves significant financial loss? You don't think that when I shoot a set of say 100 images of a model, and within days that entire set is on the p2p networks for millions of people to obtain free of charge instead of buying from me , involves significant loss? It absolutely does. If you can't see why then you don't understand how business works.
Photocopying newsweek is illegal. Handing a disc to your neighbor is illegal. Comparing that to the p2p networks is a horrible analogy. That is like comparing apples and oranges. Someone else may not be profiting off the sweat of your labor, but you are not profiting anywhere near what you could be or should be from the sweat of your labor either. That to me is the same as taking money out of my pocket.