Jason Joel Thompson wrote:
> > Moreover, you are assuming that there is some way you, a pirate
> broadcaster, can
> > attract legitimate businesses to advertise with you at a fraction of the
> cost of
> > broadcasting with the originator. However, you forget that legitimate
> > broadcasters can easily agree to black ball any advertiser who advertises
> > pirate broadcasts, and to not filch each others broadcasts.
> What's "pirate broadcaster" even mean in this context? It could be ABC as
> much as me... it's not illegal, so it's not piracy. You use these terms
> 'pirate' and 'legitimate' which only apply in world with copyright. This
> whole argument is getting so tenuous, I can barely see through the smoke.
> "Legitimate original broadcasters can easily agree to black ball any
> advertiser..." ??? The so-called "illegitimate" broadcasters could just as
> easily do the same, there's simply no "legitimacy" if you don't own your
> content. It would boil down to whoever was best at getting the content to
> lots of people and there's simply no a priori reason to suppose that the
> original broadcaster would be best at that.
I define the difference between pirate and legitimate broadcasters, in the
absence of intellectual property laws, to be a matter of ethics, morals, and
Your definition of 'best at getting content to lots of people' would have to be
tempered by what means of obtaining and delivering that content the ethics of
the people (i.e. that of every individual you seek to deliver to) are willing to
accept. If the popular opinion of you is that your are a no good theif who
steals the work of others, then a popular boycott of you is likely to greatly
limit the Q rating of your network, assuming of course that you can find enough
people to work for you.
Your inability to see through the smoke is obvious, but its the smoked glasses
of the shyster that is blocking your view.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:48 MDT