> > > > > > 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. > > > > No - it isn't! > > Ask 'em. Seriously. On the way to work or something. Please?
Deliberate misunderstanding for the sake of shoring up your increasingly feeble argument. Yes, they'll have music - sharing artistic works is NOT a central tenet of friendship. You keep parroting this line as though it backs up your argument - it's no more true now than it was the first time you mentioned it. > How many times - friendship has nothing to do with pirating > > music and films. Again - just because you can (and do) doesn't mean > that > > it's morally right. > > > > > The law isn't an authority on ethics. That something is illegal > > > doesn't mean it is wrong. > > > > > > 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. > > > > Civil disobedience, while it has a noble tradition, isn't always right. > > Copyright restrictions aren't imposed purely for the benefit of the > consumer > > - they're also there to protect the rights of the artist. Those rights > that > > you want to do away with. > > Copyright restrictions _are_ imposed purely for the benefit of the > public - That's rubbish. The copyright on a work is automatic to the creator of that work. they're only there to protect the interests of the artists in > so far as the artists' interests align with the public's. When they > diverge, the public trumps the artists. So yes, I want want to do away > with the rights that no longer work in my favor, and I'm willing to > engage in civil disobedience until the law catches up. Ah yes - you finally admit it's about things not being in your favour. Not about your woolly concept of "freedom", but about you gaining benefit at the expense of the artist. The attitude that it is morally wrong to redistribute copies came > about because of copyright legislation written for a bygone era. It > used to be in the public's benefit to prohibit redistribution, because > only businesses could do it. But now the public can do it, its not in > our favor to prohibit it, and the attitude that it is morally right to > redistribute copies has come about. 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. > You're saying that once an artist has sold one copy - to you - you have > the > > right to spread that as far and wide as you like, for free. In theory, > that > > artist may never sell another copy, but the whole world's got their > music. > > If they can find an audience that appreciates them, they will sell > other copies, despite that their audience can listen without paying > before hand. And they will sell tickets for gigs. And they will sell > branded kit. And when businesses want to use their music for > promotion, those businesses will pay them royalties. Not relevant. This isn't about suggesting how artists can replace the income stream you're taking away from them. It's about your ludicrous claim that you have the moral right to copy their music. Suggesting they should do smething else to finance making more music (which you'll then copy free of charge) is also, frankly, patronising. So that single artist will not starve, and friends will not have an > important new aspect of friendship trampled on. > > > How many times do I have to say it - you want everything to be free in > order > > for you not to have to pay for it. That's > > tautologous? Yes, but continuous repetition seems to be the only way to get any point through to you Dave. You want it to be made your legal right to have everything for nothing. > > I don't think that not *having* to pay, and *being able* to pay, are > > > mutually exclusive. We can have both. > > > > Yes - but "being able to pay" isn't part of it. > > I just said it is, bro But that isn't part of your argument. Your argument is that music / films should be (and in your mind, are) freely copyable. Your argument isn't that music / films should be copyable, only if the person receiving the copy is able to reimburse the artist in some way. You want free. Gratis. Costing you no money. Making out that you wouldn't do that, that you personally would actually reimburse the artist is both irrelevant and sounds like backtracking. And don't call me bro. Rich.
