Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
> On Aug 14, 10:59 pm, Homer <usenet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The notion of "Fair Use" has virtually disappeared since 1977
That's because the democracy that supports this fair use, and nearly all
other fairness; common sense and common decency, has also disappeared,
and has been supplanted by the rabid greed of corporatism.
>> The problem is that the "IP" industry sells /licenses/ as though
>> they were /products/. Either I'm "licensed" to view particular
>> content or I'm not. If I pay for a license /once/ then I should
>> never have to pay that license again, but the way the "IP" industry
>> works is that they demand that I pay the /same/ license for the
>> /same/ content, over and over again.
>
> Specific rights to copyright works have been under the control of the
> copyright owner for years.
Yes, and those laws which facilitate this exploitation are fundamentally
wrong.
>> /That/ is extortion, pure and simple.
>
> That depends on who you are and what you are trying to "borrow".
As I said before, if I've already paid once then I should already be
licensed, therefore I wouldn't be "borrowing anything. Apart from
anything else, the terms "borrow" and "steal" imply that there could
otherwise be a physical transfer of real property, which simply isn't
the case with copyrights, therefore those terms are completely
inappropriate; hyperbole; hysteria; sensationalism; and frankly and
outright lie - much like the use of the word "piracy". It's a form of
propaganda peddled by the Intellectual Monopolists to obfuscate the
truth; polarise the argument; and stigmatise their opponents by aligning
the indoctrinated general public against them.
> If you are a composer, arrannger, or publisher, and you've spent
> millions of dollars to promote an artist and the music to get it into
> the "Top 40" most popular songs, and somebody then wants to pay $20
> for a CD and put it on a web site where he can give away 1,000 copies
> per day,
My argument is about /use/, not distribution.
> When you pay $15 for a CD, you don't usually work that hard to
> register yourself as the owner of that CD. Furthermore, it's
> unlikely that the CD has a serial number imprinted on it, to verify
> that you are the unique owner of that uniquely identified CD.
Like I said, the "IP" industry's accounting difficulties are not my problem.
> On the other hand, if you download it from a licensed publisher's
> site, the publisher does put a "digital watermark" on the media that
> you can't see or hear, but can be traced directly back to you. He
> has also agreed to collect your personal information, including your
> credit card, address, phone number, and other indentity information,
> just in case you lose the content you have paid for.
I have no problem with watermarks, since unlike DRM they don't inhibit
my personal use of content.
> Where things get sticky is if you, the licensed purchaser of an
> authorized copy from an authorized web publisher, make another copy
> and give it to your friend, and your friend gives it to a few of his
> friends, you now have 100 or 1000 or 10,000 copies of the song, with
> your serial number on it, and at that point, the licensed publisher
> has to pay the royalties on those copies. There is a very good
> chance that he will collect those royalties by charging them to your
> credit card.
>
> Before you say, "that would be stealing from me"
No I wouldn't say that, since in this example I would be violating that
copyright by performing an unauthorised distribution, and as much as I
despise the entire premise of "Intellectual Property", I also accept
that if I break the law - however unethical that law may be - then I
must face the consequences. Therefore I do not break the law, but
instead dissent vocally against it, and meanwhile seek alternative
"content" that is more ethically licensed.
However, I am still coerced and co-opted into supporting the vile "IP"
industry by paying licenses for things I don't necessarily want (e.g.
Windows preinstalled on nearly every PC, the BBC's license "tax", etc.).
> you have to remember that you agreed to a license
I don't believe that "agreeing" to something at gunpoint should be
legally binding.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| By bucking Microsoft for open source, says Gunderloy, "I'm no
| longer contributing to the eventual death of programming."
| ~ http://www.linux.com/feature/142083
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
14:39:12 up 238 days, 11:14, 3 users, load average: 1.00, 1.16, 1.18
|
|
