On 1/31/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 31/01/07, James Cridland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/30/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Metaphors that compare digital data to physical objects are almost
> > always confusion.
>
> Agreed.
:-)
> > Stealing is stealing, copying is copying. Stealing is not copying.
>
> Not agreed. But then, you might be confusing physical objects
> with data. (!)
Do explain :-)
> > If you make furniture, the fact that furniture-duplication wands are
> > invented does not give you the right to restrict people from
> > duplicating chairs.
>
> No, but I should have the rights to restrict people from duplicating MY
> chairs.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear, because that's what I meant. Restated:
If you make furniture, the fact that furniture-duplication wands are
invented does not give you the right to restrict people from
duplicating the chairs you made. Restricing commercial duplication
might be okay, but not non-commercial in-the-public-view duplication,
and certainly not private between-friends duplication.
Bad example Dave. If I sell chairs, I can sell six of what's
essentially the same chair to the same person, so they can have six
people sit down for dinner. I want to make sure they buy six chairs.
If I sell a CD to someone, then yes, they should have the right to
copy the data on that CD for personal use, to play in the car, to play
on their MP3 player etc. They get no benefit from playing the same
song 6 on six different devices simultaneously. If they want six
people to listen to it, they can all listen to the CD being played in
the same room. I don't want them copying my CD and giving it to a
friend to play by themselves.
Cheers,
Rich.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
