>From: "Alex F. Bokov" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Brian D Williams wrote:
>> So what if it's hard?
>Who's going to pay the absurd costs of enforcement? You and I? Why
>would any rational individual choose to do that? That's what.
Actually the cost of enforcement will undoubtably be passed on to
>How would you go after them?
Drag them into court and sue for copyright infringement amongst
>You mean, CD-burners, ethernet cards, general purpose computers?
>Pretty much everything except the constitutionally protected
>presses of the dead tree variety?
Since these things have legitimate uses this would be a wasted
>Filter WHAT? Specific ports? Specific types of protocols? Snoop
>the content ala carnivore? How would you prove beyond the faintest
>possibility of any doubt to me, the voter and consumer you're
>trying to convince, that my "I Hate Disney" website, my manuscript
>for a book about why drugs should be legalized, and my
>pornographic cartoons featuring Jesus will not be snooped,
>censored, investigated, or touched in any way?
What makes you think this doesn't happen now? You don't think the
NSA watches backbone traffic?
Difficult probably, but pass the right law and it's doable.
>You may be among the few individuals who do things motivated by
>right and wrong. Sadly, most others are inspired by maximizing
>their material benefit and minimizing their material cost. Or at
>least that's what they were teaching in economics last time I took
>a class in it.
Thanks for the compliment, life is more than economics.
>> They are trying to protect their material and it's associated
>> revenue stream.
>Of course they are. Just as I as an independent content creator
>and consumer am attempting to break their chokehold on the market.
>Their revenue stream is of no interest to me, just as I'm sure
>mine is of no interest to them.
There is nothing to prevent you from creating material and
distributing it free of charge, but I don't think individuals have
the right to make that decision for other artists.
>Nor does calling downloading of copyrighted material "theft".
Actually being in possession of illegally copied material is
defined in the criminal code as theft.
>No, I haven't, but it's my own fault for not being clear enough.
>I meant the answer to the question "When is an MP3 anything but a
>nonexcludable, nonrival good?"
The only time an MP3 is a nonexcludable nonrival good is when it is
explicitly created of independently created material and as such
the creator forgoes all claim.
In other words like I said you can create your own independent work
and release it for free.
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:15 MDT