Roy Schestowitz wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Remember How ACTA Wasn't Supposed To Be A 'Major' Change To Copyright Laws?
,----[ Quote ]
| This is a key point that plenty of folks have made clear over the years:
| assuming that every shared file would have been a lost sale is absolutely
| false. Putting that into the law and suggesting judges use that false concept
| as a basis for calculating damages is quite troubling. In the meantime, we're
| still trying to figure out why ACTA is even necessary? And... on top of that,
| no one has yet explained why industry lobbyists have been integral to the
| negotiations, but the public and public interest groups are being blocked
| from any information based on bogus national security claims.
Quite true. It doesn't particularly affect me cos contrary to what our
resident smartarse says, I don't violate copyright. That said, it is an
absolute fallacy to suggest that every illegal copy stopped would equal
one purchase. A trade has something of value for both sides. If the
customer side believes on the whole that the trade is not of equal
value, then it won't happen. Simple as that.
|
|
