From: Peter Gannushkin <shkin@shkin.com>
Hello Steve,
Saturday, November 30, 2002, you wrote:
Cac> Please tell me why, if someone copies and keeps one of our releases, thereby Cac> depriving me of the sale of that release and our artist for the payment of Cac> the sale of that release, why this *isn't* theft?
Pretty simple. Lets say I'm making hamburgers and selling them. You bought one, tasted it and then made copies of it, invited friends and you ate them. Did you steal something from me? No. Did I get less money because you didn't buy hamburgers from me, but copied them instead? Yes. Was it theft? Of course not. Now, tell me, what is the difference?
Christ, are you serious? Curlew has a particular hamburger that they own the rights to. They contract with Steve/Cuneiform to distribute that particular hamburger. Copies of an artwork are not like copies of a generic foodstuff like hamburgers. If you manage to duplicate Curlew's blend of eleven herbs and spices in your CD burner and can create exact copies of Curlew's hamburger, you are cutting into Curlew's rights as an artist and Steve's rights (agreed into by contract) as distributor of the Curlewburger. You are stealing Curlew's and Steve's right to profit from Curlewburgers. There are Britneyburgers and Curlewburgers and Burnt Weeny Sandwiches and Bingcrosbyburgers. We're not talking about "hamburgers" here. We're talking about aural artworks, and your "reductio ad absurdem" is heavy on the "absurdem." Are you saying there's no difference in the flavor between a Britneyburger and a Curlewburger? Because the flavor difference is what Curlew has contracted with Steve to market, and the special picquance of a Britneyburger (urgh, my stomach is rolling) is what she's contracted with whatever-the-fuck-her-label-is to market. Copying CDs is theft. It just is. Instead of that question, we need to be talking about when and where the theft is justified. And sorry Steve-at-Cuneiform, I think sometimes it is. Ah'm Hongry! William Crump