[MPlayer-users] Re: Rescuing a scratched DVD

[Jeremy Maitin-Shepard]

D Richard Felker III <dalias at aerifal.cx> writes:

> On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 10:42:44PM -0500, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
>> [Automatic answer: RTFM (read DOCS, FAQ), also read DOCS/bugreports.html]
>> D Richard Felker III <dalias at aerifal.cx> writes:
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> > My point is that you should not be paying a premium for a DVD over
>> > what the media costs.
>> 
>> How about what the production of the film costs?  Are you suggesting
>> that film producers should 1) operate at a loss, and 2) continue to
>> produce films?

> That's their choice. I don't care whether they do or not. I do care if
> they litigate against people for exercising basic personal liberty.

I don't see how it is a ``basic personal liberty'' not to be bound by
(most) license agreements.  The DMCA prohibitions are another story.

>> > Copyright monopoly is not any more legitimate than other
>> > government-granted monopolies as a way to make money. If you can't
>> > make a profit without enforcing it against individuals, you should
>> > find another business model.
>> 
>> You can be sure that without patents and copyrights, there would be
>> far less innovation generally,

> This is blatently false. In fact the opposite is true.

Look at a popular game like Quake.  Would Quake exist if there were no
copyrights?  Probably not, since it would mean that Id software would
have no incentive to make it.  So all those people that enjoy Quake
currently would be harmed by the lack of copyrights.

You seem be suggesting that all those that currently produce software,
pharmaceuticals, etc. would continue to do so as hobbyists, even without
being payed.  I am inclined to believe that there would only, at best,
be a very modest increase in open source software production.

As far as pharmaceuticals, although you might that prices are such that
pharmaceutical companies make excessive profits (which may be the
case), eliminating patents completely would mean that these companies
would no longer produce any pharmaceuticals.  You could argue that the
government could instead fund all pharmaceutical research, but it seems
very likely the government would be rather inefficient at doing so.

>> and specifically almost no video or
>> audio works.

> There would probably be less, and that's a good thing. Get rid of the
> crap that's just made to make a profit and what remains is the real
> art.

That ``crap'' makes a profit because people like to see it, buy it,
etc.  By eliminating copyrights and patents, that ``crap'' would not be
produced in the first place, and so those people that decided that
they _benefit_ more from seeing or buying the work than from having the
$10 or whatever it costs would not be able to obtain that benefit.
Thus, those people are harmed by a lack of copyrights also.

>> It is reasonable to argue that the time limits on copyrights and
>> patents be reduced, but abolishing copyrights and patents in entirety
>> would help no one.

> Also blatently false.

I admit that is possible that someone would _not_ be harmed by lack of
copyrights.  Most people do benefit from copyrights though: another good
example is books.  If there were no copyrights, there would be far fewer
books.  Should we deny to all those that currently buy books the
opportunity to benefit from trading the bookstore price of the book for
the book?

-- 
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard