On 31/10/2007, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/31/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Sharing artistic works between friends is one of the central tenets of > > friendship. Ask anyone under 20 if they've got a laptop, and if they > > do, if they have copies of music from their friends. Its almost > > certain that they will. > > No - it isn't!
Ask 'em. Seriously. On the way to work or something. Please? > How many times - friendship has nothing to do with pirating > music and films. Again - just because you can (and do) doesn't mean that > it's morally right. > > > The law isn't an authority on ethics. That something is illegal > > doesn't mean it is wrong. > > > > You don't have the automatic right to redistribute someone > > > else's artistic endeavours. > > > > You do, because the ultimate point of copyright is to benefit > > audiences, its not for the sake of publishers, or authors. People tend > > increasingly to reject and disobey the copyright restrictions imposed > > on them "for their own benefit" which highlights this. > > Civil disobedience, while it has a noble tradition, isn't always right. > Copyright restrictions aren't imposed purely for the benefit of the consumer > - they're also there to protect the rights of the artist. Those rights that > you want to do away with. Copyright restrictions _are_ imposed purely for the benefit of the public - they're only there to protect the interests of the artists in so far as the artists' interests align with the public's. When they diverge, the public trumps the artists. So yes, I want want to do away with the rights that no longer work in my favor, and I'm willing to engage in civil disobedience until the law catches up. The attitude that it is morally wrong to redistribute copies came about because of copyright legislation written for a bygone era. It used to be in the public's benefit to prohibit redistribution, because only businesses could do it. But now the public can do it, its not in our favor to prohibit it, and the attitude that it is morally right to redistribute copies has come about. > You're saying that once an artist has sold one copy - to you - you have the > right to spread that as far and wide as you like, for free. In theory, that > artist may never sell another copy, but the whole world's got their music. If they can find an audience that appreciates them, they will sell other copies, despite that their audience can listen without paying before hand. And they will sell tickets for gigs. And they will sell branded kit. And when businesses want to use their music for promotion, those businesses will pay them royalties. So that single artist will not starve, and friends will not have an important new aspect of friendship trampled on. > How many times do I have to say it - you want everything to be free in order > for you not to have to pay for it. That's tautologous? > > I don't think that not *having* to pay, and *being able* to pay, are > > mutually exclusive. We can have both. > > Yes - but "being able to pay" isn't part of it. I just said it is, bro -- 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]/
