On 31/10/2007, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > and that the original > > > creators have no moral right to deny you that. You then try and make it > > > sound warm and fluffy by going on to state, with no justifiation, that > > > giving away other people's creativity is one of the central tenets of > > > friendship - and if anyone has the temerity to disagree, they're horrid, > > > unfriendly people. > > > > Sharing copies is how the youth of today roll, bro. Its self evident. > > Now you're backtracking wildly. Just because something can be done and done > fairly easily doesn't make it your inalienable right to do it.
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. > > It is inarguable that they should have those "fair use" rights, and > > this is a central problem of DRM, since it tramples them. > > Yes. Agreed. GREAT SUCCESS http://funkyheart.com/images/stories/Borat/highfive.gif > > I have a position that differs from the law to > > date. But the law isn't an authority on ethics. For example, in living > > memory in places in the USA, it was illegal to sit at the front of a > > bus if you were black. That something is illegal didn't mean it is > > wrong. > > Ooh - naughty naughty, likening something you don't agree with to racism. > This isn't the same and you're trying to bring in more emotive arguments > now. I'll rephrase: The law isn't an authority on ethics. That something is illegal doesn't mean it is wrong. I am advocating something that is not legal, but is not wrong. > > > so they can avoid paying any money for it. > > > > I'm all in favor of sending money to artists whose work we value, and > > there are many schemes that can be arranged to make this convenient. > > They aren't yet implemented on a large scale. > > But this doesn't back up your stated belief that you have the right to copy > and give away. I don't think that not *having* to pay, and *being able* to pay, are mutually exclusive. We can have both. > >But the paying money happens after getting copies of the music, not > >before, like it was in the 20th century. > > But you're not backing your argument up. I've agreed that the business > model is changing, and will probably change more. The point is that you > believe you have the right to copy anything and everything, and you're not > backing it up at all. The reason the business models are changing is because we have the right to copy anything and everything. > > The business model of the music business *is* changing, you're quite > right, > > but that doesn't automatically give you the right to take away one large > > proportion of a band's income. > > Its changing because we have that right, and we are exercising it. > > No. You're trying to stomp all over it by not paying for goods and > services. (I appreciate that a digital download may not technically be > defined as a "good", but you know what I mean) > > It's a loss of revenue. > > Buggy whips suffered terrible losses of revenue when cars came along > and STOLE their POTENTIAL SALES. > > The horror. > > Specious comparison. That would be a good argument if you were comparing > 1970s prog rock bands and punk, crooners and rock 'n' roll, or even vinyl > pressers and CD manufacturers, where one thing supercedes another, but in > this case it doesn't hold up. We're talking about you advocating simply > giving away the results of someone else's work. Publishers, like record companies, suffered terrible losses of revenue when the public got hold of the internet and came along and STOLE their POTENTIAL SALES. One thing supercedes another. > You don't have the automatic right to redistribute someone > else's artistic endeavours. You do, because the ultimate point of copyright is to benefit audiences, its not for the sake of publishers, or authors. People tend increasingly to reject and disobey the copyright restrictions imposed on them "for their own benefit" which highlights this. -- 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
