Martin Belam wrote:
I'll just run this by everyone again
"If you wish to talk about personal images use the example of adults,
a spouse for example. Or personal information. Involving children is
like using the word Nazi, it is designed to close down debate, because
of the moral panic surrounding the issue."
Yep, absolutely David. Using a real world example of something I have
actually done in the last two weeks that used the existing copyright
law framework and Internet distribution is clearly an attempt to
stifle your debate and restrict your freedom rather than actually test
your argument. Let me be clear, I wouldn't want to impose upon you in
any way, please feel free to continue to dismiss any example that
doesn't fit into your world view.
Sorry Martin,
It is just safer to use adults, as an example (less chance of
misunderstandings) Fearghas was been a pain, providing an example of why
it is easier to avoid references to children.
Yes: copyright gives you redress against commercial organisations, but I
think other laws would be more appropriate (in my opinion) to address
the very real problem you raise. These laws may not currently exist.
Respect for the person and the privacy of individuals, seems a more
appropriate route (to me).
I accept it is a real issue, and your intentions were honorable.
Sorry for any offense I might have caused.
I don't give myself much thinking time between posts.
-
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]/
