David Berry wrote:
Why on earth would FC-UK want to become the loony fringe of the
debate? The idea is to *fight* for the ideas you believe in, not to
act as a straw man just because ORG is too scared to say anything more
radical than keep things as they are. If we keep letting the media
image of how we are represented in the debate drive things then we
become nothing more than a PR stunt. I find that sad and pointless.
How about actually addressing the issues, and dealing with the
questions raised by the radical reform of copyright, rather than
idiotic abolitionist positions that are not substantiated by careful
consideration of the pros and cons
I find that offensive.
Since I brought up patents, I'll talk in terms of patents.
There is a perfectly reasonable case for patent abolition. There are
well-known orthodox economists who will argue for it (michele boldrin
and david levine, in particular). There are major global campaigns
around alternatives to patents applied to medicine (see Jamie Love's
CPTech site). There have been repeated studies that show that periods
of patent abolition in the past (Holland/Switzerland) had no kind of
adverse economic effects. etc.
You may well disagree with the position, and/or think it unrealistic
for FC-UK to support it. But there is no reason to call people who
believe patents to be harmful 'idiots', especially when FC-UK has so far
been broad enough to contain both points of view. Or to claim some kind
of monopoly on 'careful consideration of the pros and cons'.
Graham
- afterall SOMEHOW the artists and musicians *will* need to
be compensated else why would they accept change. See William Fisher's
book, Promises to Keep, for an excellent attempt to make a cogent case
for copyright reform.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Promises-Keep-Technology-Future-Entertainment/dp/0804750130/sr=8-3/qid=1164886440/ref=sr_1_3/026-7241997-7440430?ie=UTF8&s=books
<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Promises-Keep-Technology-Future-Entertainment/dp/0804750130/sr=8-3/qid=1164886440/ref=sr_1_3/026-7241997-7440430?ie=UTF8&s=books>
We can argue till we are blue in the face for changes in copyright
law, but if we are to have political impact we need to make a
*convincing* argument, substantiated with *evidence*. And no, just
because you feel in your gut that copyright is wrong, doesn't mean
that everyone is going to accept your argument.
On 30 Nov 2006, at 11:15, Timothy Cowlishaw wrote:
On 30 Nov 2006, at 10:41, Crosbie Fitch wrote:
If ORG wish to be seen as loony compromisers adopting the logical
fallacy of
'appeal to moderation', well that's up to them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
fc-uk-discuss mailing list
fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
_______________________________________________
fc-uk-discuss mailing list
fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
