Dave Crossland wrote:
So you're saying that _not_ filesharing is betraying friends and
neighbours?
Certainly.
Because it's morally correct to share something that is not diminished
by sharing?
Correct!
So where is the balance?
I believe you're referring to the commonly-held misconception that
there is a "copyright balance." Please read
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html to
understand why this concept is mistaken.
No, not copyright balance. Economic balance.
Or do you believe that the content creator (and as
Michael pointed out, colleagues) doesn't deserve recompense?
"Deserve", no.
Authors do not inherently deserve the right to control the publics use
of their work;
I didn't ask that - I asked if they deserve recompense.
those rights are given to them by the public, and were
intended to be given only in so far as that they benefitted the
public.
No, quote: "Rather, it does this to modify their behavior: to provide an
incentive for authors to write more and publish more."
Society (and therefore I) has a moral obligation to uphold its end of the
bargain - ie limit unpaid sharing.
Corporate corruption of governments has weakened democracy
very badly, and the way copyright is used against the public interest
is an example of this wider problem with global society.
Agree 100%. eg Disney are, wrt copyright, completely hypocritical bastards.
I am similarly sickened by the situation in schools where "rights holders" are
coming down on music clubs and essentially preventing musical performances.
Authors need to find new business models that do not harm the public;
they do exist, and there is a lot of money to be made in pursuing
them.
But they need society as a whole to agree to an approach.
And for the past 40 years (or so) the predominantly physical transport of media
has lead to a status-quo. Whilst it's appealing to rip it out roots and all -
it's not pragmatic.
So we have copyright - a legal tool used by the GPL. It's not going away.
DRM, or rather LESS - is the issue.
And I object to having to pay for each of these things. I object to
paying for a
new copy because my old player died.
I'm glad to hear we agree on all of these things.
We're closer than I think you think :)
You're right, try:
>> For *THE VAST MAJORITY OF MORALLY SOUND PEOPLE*, which is more
likely to
>> work?
Morally sound people share with their friends.
Morally sound people would accept their societal obligations and contribute to
the artist to a societally accepted degree (yes, driven by capitalism) and then
obtain the media, possibly electronically from a friend.
> Neither. Talk to teenagers - file sharing is here to stay.
If your argument is that we raise morally bankrupt children then so be
it.
Teenagers however, are not the vast majority of people.
No, but with the baby boom generation about to retire, en masse, young
people are assuming positions of power previously unavailable. These
young people have grown up with computers (although not the Internet)
and understand that file sharing is a good thing to do.
This has little to do with file sharing and more to do with economics and
license enforcement.
David
-
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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
