Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
And stop throwing around the word victim. People are not victims of copyright law. A victim is someone who is harmed or damaged as a result of a crime. Nobody was ever harmed by buying a DVD and if they feel the copyright laws are so strict that they are harmed when they do so, they are willingly harming themselves.
|
great give me half of all your money
it not really that bad since you still have half
you yourself argued that movie industry would make $3-4 dollars per movie ticket if the mediums competed equally.
that means that everyone buying a ticket is being forced to pay $3-4 dollars more than what they would pay if FAIR MARKET COMPETITION existed.
Quote:
|
Let me ask you this: Should consumers have the right to tell lawmakers to pass laws forcing companies to set specific prices for products? Say, for example, shoes. Should the people be able to have such influence over the lawmakers that the lawmakers force Nike to sell their shoes for a maximum of $15 per pair? Should Nike not have a say in this and be allowed to explain why they charge what they charge?
|
of course not forcing companies to sell below market prices is just as bad as companies forcing prices up by eliminating competition (see our access shifting arguement)
BTW you still haven't explained why you believe the lost commerical/lost sales from forcing people to buy albums wasn't a valid justification to stop those fair uses, but the lost profits from a timeline of release dates is.
what is so different between those three lost profits that justifies the first two fair uses but denies the third.