On 01/11/2007, Richard Lockwood <[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. > > Yes, they'll have music - sharing artistic works is NOT a > central tenet of friendship.
Before people had laptops, it wasn't. Now they have laptops, it is. That they share copies of music is evidence of this. > > Copyright restrictions _are_ imposed purely for the benefit of the > > public - > > That's rubbish. The copyright on a work is automatic to the creator of that > work. That's _how_ copyright works, not _why_ it exists. > > 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. > > Ah yes - you finally admit it's about things not being in your favour. Not > about your woolly concept of "freedom" I'll rephrase so this is less woolly for you: Copyright is 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 trample my freedom to be a good friend, and I'm willing to engage in civil disobedience until the law catches up. > Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Why _should_ freedom to redistribute copies be restricted? You've said its because the loss of potential sales, ie, income. To which I say..... > > 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. ...which is why that... > Not relevant. ...is relevant. > This isn't about suggesting how artists can replace the > income stream you're taking away from them. It's about your ludicrous claim > that you have the moral right to copy their music. Suggesting they should > do smething else to finance making more music (which you'll then copy free > of charge) Tickets for gigs and branded kit are physical goods, so the public can't make copies. Businesses making government-regulated uses of works is also not my concern, because taxing businesses is hardly controversial. > > > 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? > > Yes, but But but but. lol > > > > 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 > > But that isn't part of your argument. Your argument is that music / films > should be (and in your mind Its not just in my mind, as we have agreed: > > 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. > > Yes, they'll have music :-) > are) freely copyable. Your argument isn't that > music / films should be copyable, only if the person receiving the copy is > able to reimburse the artist in some way. Yes, because "only if" is too restrictive. Replace it with "and" and you're approaching my point. > And don't call me bro. I'm just trying to get you down with the kids. -- 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]/
