Another bad Napster analogy...

From:
Date: Wed Feb 21 2001 - 19:14:22 EST

  • Next message: ytsejam@torchsong.com: "YTSEJAM digest 5778"

    >
    >> Downloading an MP3 illegally (via Napster or whatever) is *not*
    >> the same as taking a TV from a store (or a CD even). In one case, you
    >> have taken a physical object and removed it from another person's
    >> possession (stealing the TV). In the other case, you have copied the
    >> product and left the original in the person's possession (download via
    >> Napster). This is really not the same thing (not to say that it is
    >> necessarily right either). Since they are not the same your analogy
    >> fails, you cannot conclude that the security guard and Napster are
    >> equally bad/wrong.
    >
    >This is a very common pro-Napster argument.
    >
            While it may be used by some people in defense of napster, it's
    hardly a pro-Napster argument. It's simply an argument that debunks
    the analogy that says copying and MP3 file is the same as theft of a
    physical object.

    >They are not the same thing exactly, the same way "stealing and using a
    >$100 bill" and "using a copy of a $100 bill" are not the same exactly.
    >
            Unfortunately, this is another poor analogy. Presumably the
    person copying the $100 bill intends to spend it and the store owner
    (or whomever) receives the copied $100 will *not* spend it since it is
    a fake. At that point, I've given you a worthless copy of a $100 for
    a CD and you no longer have the CD. That's an analogy which is similar
    to the stealing the physical CD one. Once again, it's not the same as
    downloading an MP3 where I haven't taken the original CD from you.

    >Anyway, even though the original is still there, it is easily for anyone
    >with imagination to imagine that a person that obtained a copy of that
    >music file is less likely to buy the CD. And of course, someone else in
    >his turn can make a copy of that copy, etc. Is "less likely" equal to "a
    >lot less likely" or "just a little bit less likely?" That's a religious
    >issue. I lean toward the former, but I'm a cynical bastard with 20 years
    >experience of economics as relates to music. :) >
    >
            This argument is better where you argue that my copying
    of your CD might reduce the potential value of your CD since I am
    <some percentage here> less likely to buy your CD. This argument is
    much harder to prove however, so people go for the "theft" analogy.
    But, I think it's much closer to the heart of the matter.

                                    Steve



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 01 2004 - 19:10:52 EST