Hi David!
On 12/06/07, David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 12/06/07, David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> If however you say "making a copy of this DVD for your own use (eg in
>> case of
>> damage) is OK but it is wrong to give it away or sell it. Please don't
>> do that."
>>
>> Then you are actually treating the consumer as a reasonable person.
>
> No, you're attacking their civic spirit and the nature of friendship,
> and that's not cool. No one self-respecting is going to agree to
> betray their friends and neighbours like that.
So you're saying that _not_ filesharing is betraying friends and neighbours?
Certainly.
Because it's morally correct to share something that is not diminished by
sharing?
Correct!
So where is the balance?
I believe you're referring to the commonly-held misconception that
there is a "copyright balance." Please read
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html to
understand why this concept is mistaken.
Or do you believe that the content creator (and as
Michael pointed out, colleagues) doesn't deserve recompense?
"Deserve", no.
Authors do not inherently deserve the right to control the publics use
of their work; those rights are given to them by the public, and were
intended to be given only in so far as that they benefitted the
public. Corporate corruption of governments has weakened democracy
very badly, and the way copyright is used against the public interest
is an example of this wider problem with global society.
Authors need to find new business models that do not harm the public;
they do exist, and there is a lot of money to be made in pursuing
them.
The 'rules' of our society include exchanging money for products and services.
As a rabid anti-DRM person I do not object to paying to listen/watch - it costs
money to create this stuff and I expect to contribute.
I do however object to having to pay Microsoft/Apple/Sony to listen/watch. I
also object to not being able to listen/watch on my home-made gizmo. I want to
listen/watch my media in my car; I want to innovate and listen/watch in my
bath...
And I object to having to pay for each of these things. I object to paying for a
new copy because my old player died.
I'm glad to hear we agree on all of these things.
>> For *THE VAST MAJORITY OF LAW ABIDING PEOPLE*, which is more likely to
>> work?
>
> By saying "law abiding," you're invoking the law as an authority on
> ethics, which is ill-conceived. The law is, at best, at attempt to
> achieve justice. Often, if doesn't: law abiding people moved to the
> back of the bus.
You're right, try:
>> For *THE VAST MAJORITY OF MORALLY SOUND PEOPLE*, which is more likely to
>> work?
Morally sound people share with their friends.
> Neither. Talk to teenagers - file sharing is here to stay.
If your argument is that we raise morally bankrupt children then so be it.
Teenagers however, are not the vast majority of people.
No, but with the baby boom generation about to retire, en masse, young
people are assuming positions of power previously unavailable. These
young people have grown up with computers (although not the Internet)
and understand that file sharing is a good thing to do.
--
Regards,
Dave
-
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]/
