Off: Re: A Question on Bootlegs

[M Holmes]

Paul Mather writes:


>> Charging what? What's a blank disc, 90 cents? You don't think 90
>> cents is => fair, but you expect me depreciate my cdr burner and use
>> my gas to drive to => the post office and stand in line to send you a
>> cdr.

> No, I don't "expect" you to do anything.  But if you do, I am grateful
> for it.

> What difference is there between asking for extra media and asking for
> a tenner? (And why stop at 2-for-1 in that case?) Spreading the music
> is about exactly that: free exchange of music to spread it to those to
> whom you want to expose it.  It is a free exchange.

Excellent communitarian sentiments.

> Charging for your
> time/depreciation is just another form of charging for the music.

No, it's charging for resources used. Not everyone is a communitarian,
but that doesn't mean that they're necessarily money-grubbing profiteers
either (and remember that some of us are libertarians and regard the
word "profit" as veledictory in many contexts).

In this context, it's down to the actual price. If someone judges that
the price goes so far above costs that it must necessarily be profitting
from copyrighted material then they have the option to refuse the deal.
They don't call it "free trade" because it's done for nothing; it's
because both parties are free to say yay or nay.

> If
> you're not willing to do it freely (and I'm not saying you aren't),
> then don't do it.  Plain and simple.

And somewhat authoritarian. The band's lawyers may have that power but
god helpd us if the fans ever get to do much more than utter stern words
of disapproval and refuse to deal.

> Besides, in all the trading communities in which I move, N-for-1
> trades are considered anathema

And good luck to you all. Not everyone lives in your ideological suburb
though.

> (officially and unofficially), and you
> can always find plenty of people prepared to do a 1-for-1 B&P if
> someone were to require N-for-1.  It's only those who don't know any
> better that fall for the ol' 2-for-1 "trade."

I don't see much wrong with that. It means that people with nothing to
trade get what tey want, and the other guy gets an extra tape to do
more trading with someone else (or do we simply assume that the
"profiteer" is always rich enough to buy as many tapes as they want?) in
return for their effort. If both parties are happy with such a deal then
what's it to anyone else to criticise it?

> Paul.

FoFP

Next Week: Why Mike Should Get Beer at Cost While Barmaids Work For Free