On 5/24/05, Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 24 May 2005 20:54, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > > One note, if I may: > > > > On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:02:26PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote: > > > First of all, will you stop with this stealing thing? The only time I > > > could have stole data is if I intruded to someone's computer and got some > > > piece of data which was private or confidential. This is real stealing. > > > However, ripping a song off a CD (that is publicly sold in shops), and > > > then putting it online and downloading it, is by no means stealing. It is > > > simply "copying". Whether it is OK or not is argumentative. > > > > This is not stealing. However it is a clear violation of what I > > personally consider the "original intention" of the copyrights law: > > > > Copyrights today indeed give too much power to the author. They let the > > author control not only distribution, as originally intended, but also > > usage. "Pirates" were originally competing publishers publishing > > unauthorised copies of works. The copyrights law today also last too long. > > Practically forever. > > > > However by taking a new CD whose author does not allow free distribution > > and allowing free download of it through the internet you indeed violate > > the "original" copyrights law. > > > > Some of the negative responses have you got have been from people who > > hold a similar position: today's copyrights are bad, but it is either > > bad or impractical to totally abolish them altogether. > > I never claimed that copyrights law must be abolished altogether. (can you > point to a place where I said that?). Some rights of the copyrighted material > owners must still be preserved.
And I believe the most basic one, is the right to decide how it can be used. > > However, regardless of the intention of the original copyrights law, which > were formed during a time where technology was considerably less capable of > easily copying and distributing a copyrighted (or PD for that matter) > material than it is today: > > do you think it is desirable to enforce a law that prevents people from > ripping a CD/eBook/DVD/whatever and sharing it online? Do you think it would > be practical? Do you think that it is a crime to do that? > > Technology advances, and law and philosophy must advance with it. Killing a person with a knife is messy, difficult and dangerous to the killer. Killing a person with sniper from 250m is easier, cleaner and less dangerous to the killer. Should the law (and our philosophy) change in respect to murder? > > Just for the record, I'll re-iterate a story that RMS likes to tell. He said > that when he was in elementary school his teacher encouraged the class to > share their candies with their friends. And today, it is the opposite: "No > Tommy, don't share your software/music/video/whatever. It's illegal." > > Even as an Individualist, I like to share things I have with other people whom > I care about. I do that not only because I like it but because I realize that > they too will share things they have with me too. If they are yours to share. If you have a bus/train/airline ticket, can you pass it to another pass anger so he or she can use it after you have boarded? > > Regards, > > Shlomi Fish > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/ > > Tcl is LISP on drugs. Using strings instead of S-expressions for closures > is Evil with one of those gigantic E's you can find at the beginning of > paragraphs. > > ================================================================= > To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ================================================================To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
