On 01/11/2007, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sharing artistic works is NOT a
> central tenet of friendship.
Of course it is. You can't possibly be friends with someone unless you
copy stuff off them. I mean how could you possible be a friend due to
things like shared interests, conversation or any other social
activities. Did you not know nobody in the world had friends till the
dawn of Internet File Sharing, they all sat around on there one
speaking to no one. It wasn't until file sharing that friendship
existed how could you not know that?
(^^ I would hope I don't need to point this out but that was meant
sarcastically.)
Seriously if all your friendships are based solely on what "artistic"
material you can acquire from a friend I think you might need to
reconsider your concept of friendship.
Anyone who knows me, (and most of the people on this list as well ;))
would know that I am certainly not the most pro-copyright person
around. And yet even I disagree with the statement that friendship is
based on file sharing.
Of course media does have an impact on friendship. I watch DVDs I
legally own with friends. Of course they are getting access to the
media content and aren't paying anything, but *severely* doubt that is
the kind of sharing that Rich is objecting to.
> Just because you can doesn't mean you should. You *can* stab your neighbour
> to death with a breadknife. Doesn't make it morally right.
I hope your not comparing copy a CD from a friend to murder, I think
most of us agree that murder is a far more serious than copyright
infringement.
> Suggesting they should
> do smething else to finance making more music (which you'll then copy free
> of charge) is also, frankly, patronising.
Are you saying people shouldn't suggest alternative business models,
or are you saying his are patronizing, or are you saying that just
because someone can present an alternative revenue stream it doesn't
alter the morality of copying?
Surely a rational business must at least consider alternative models
for making revenue.
As an aside I was reading a paper about music in the age of copying.
It's in a book at home (it's part of a selection of papers on a DRM
conference. I was interested in some of the technical papers, it's on
the web I think.)
> Yes, but continuous repetition seems to be the only way to get any point
> through to you Dave.
I could name a few other people that applies to ;)
Maybe I should repeat some stuff till it gets through to people.
Compilation of source code is not a cryptographically secure way to
protect data or algorithms.
Compilation of source code is not a cryptographically secure way to
protect data or algorithms.
Compilation of source code is not a cryptographically secure way to
protect data or algorithms.
Compilation of source code is not a cryptographically secure way to
protect data or algorithms.
Compilation of source code is not a cryptographically secure way to
protect data or algorithms.
Andy
--
Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows.
-- Adam Heath
-
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]/
