p2pnet.net News View:- Our current top-of-the-page lead is slugged Canada’s anti-p2p plan and deals with the Big Music cartel’s attempts to turn Canada into another marketing division.

Among the comment posts is this from Cyberscan.

Read on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We don’t need the cartel’s “entertainment” or propaganda (or news as they call it). We don’t need the cartel’s infrastructure either. All we need are the wireless network products, and we can build our own ad-hoc networks and continue trading as WE SEE FIT. I already know that the kids of one apartment complex who are already doing this. If one person rents a movie, all can have a copy within an hour. The speed of a properly build ad-hoc network is much better than that of the cartel owned networks, and it is much more private as well.

As far as copyright is concerned, read this:

Last year, I went to the local nursery and bought 5 grape vines. This spring, I have taken clippings from the best 2 and have rooted them. I intend to give these new plants to 2 of my friends.

Do you consider this stealing? Most people do not. Yet when it comes to music, computer programs and other like items, people are conditioned to say that copying and redistributing them is stealing. If someone goes to the local music store and buys a CD, he or she is doing the same thing as if he or she is buying a vine from a local breeder.

When a person takes a grapevine or a piece of music and reproduces it, it is the same act - reproduction. Just as it costs money for rooting compound and potting medium, it costs money for a writeable cd. Now, if I give a reproduced vine away, it is perfectly legal. However, if I do the same with the music that I bought, it is considered piracy.

What makes music different? Is it the varying sounds? If that is the case, then what about the specific traits of the grapevine? Just as each track is different, so is each grapevine. Yet government and cartel policy forbid the reproduction of specific sounds and not the reproduction of specific traits (at least not yet). I don’t listen to cartel music, but if I did, I would freely rip and copy a CD or DVD for any person who wishes to have a copy and do so with a clear conscience. The same goes with movies.

I believe in the 10 Commandments, and I do not steal. I do not consider reproduction and redistribution stealing no matter what the cartels say. However, if I said that it was I that wrote the song I bought, I would consider that a crime (of lying, and or fraud) just the same as it is if I stated that I originally bought the grapevine from Gallo vineyards when I actually bought it from the local plant nursery.

If I copied and sold a piece of work and misstated the origin of the work (by claiming I wrote it or claim it came from Gallo winery), then I would be committing theft by deception (fraud). The buyer would not be getting something that he or she was expecting. Music or movies are just like the grapevine. I can choose to get a clipping from a friend or neighbor or I can buy it from a plant breeder. Once the music or movie is mine, I can copy it and give it away or sell it just like I can with my grapevine cutting.

What is the differences besides government, court, or cartel policy? THERE IS NONE!!!

Whether it is the uniqueness of a song, or the uniqueness of a plant, they both are reproducible and transferable as far as right or wrong is concerned.

==============

Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 30th, 2005 at 9:09 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

HOME

Viewed 1839 times