In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:49:08 +0000
<3223534.nDBBTxP7BY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> File ?sharing? or ?stealing??
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | In essence, Sigfrid is saying that something in unlimited supply can't be
> | stolen. His position is a variation on a theme advanced by Mike Masnick of
> | Techdirt.com, among others: that the entertainment industry's aggressive
> | copyright-enforcement efforts spring from an outdated, analog-era notion of
> | scarcity. Under this view, copyright holders are helped, not harmed, by file
> | sharing and other online distribution pipelines; they just haven't adapted
> | their business models to take advantage of the new opportunities. Supporters
> | of this view include musicians, authors and filmmakers who say that that file
> | sharing helped bring the exposure they needed to sell their works.
> `----
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-healey18feb18,0,5092348.story
If one acknowledges the right to forbid spreading of a
copyrighted work, then sharing is clearly outright theft
unless otherwise specified by the copyright holder.
If one does not acknowledge this right, then one gets
into some rather interesting territory; I'm not quite sure
where this debate will end up. Personally, I'd not want
to have to worry about it.
I have no idea whether rights even *exist* -- the system
as I see it is akin to a mutual contract, where we are
governed by our own consent. Ideally, of course, we
should respect our fellow men and women, and try to help
each other. (This particular subpoint is clearly well outside
COLA, of course.)
>
> Lawyers For ?Imposter? P2P Software Threaten Open-Source Team
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | A company trying to pass itself off as vendors of the open-source
> | file-sharing software Shareaza, has set the legal dogs on the real Shareaza
> | forum. Discordia Ltd, who earlier turned Bearshare and iMesh into pay
> | services, demanded action after a member of the real Shareaza forum suggested
> | a DOS attack on the site.
> `----
>
> http://torrentfreak.com/shareaza-imposter-lawyers-threaten-forum-080225/
>
>
> Related:
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5jkZFIwmc-8
>
>
> Lessig: Required Reading: the next 10 years
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
<included from article for context>
Think, for example, about term extension. From a
public policy perspective, the question of extending
existing copyright terms is, as Milton Friedman put it,
a "no brainer." As the Gowers Commission concluded in
Britain, a government should never extend an existing
copyright term. No public regarding justification
could justify the extraordinary deadweight loss that
such extensions impose.
<end inclusion>
> | Yet governments continue to push ahead with this idiot idea --
> | both Britain and Japan for example are considering extending
> | existing terms. Why?
> |
> | The answer is a kind of corruption of the political process.
> | Or better, a "corruption" of the political process. I don't
> | mean corruption in the simple sense of bribery. I mean
> | "corruption" in the sense that the system is so queered by
> | the influence of money that it can't even get an issue as
> | simple and clear as term extension right.
> `----
>
> http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003800.shtml#003800
>
Personally, I'm all for term extension; I think copyright
should be recognized indefinitely. However, *profiting*
from that copyright is something else again, and that's
where the real issues start -- after all, who really
owns Beethoven's works anyway? Who created them?
Who should profit by selling them? Who should forbid
their distribution? These are four different questions,
with three different answers, which are, respectively,
"the public", "Beethoven", "nobody", and "nobody", though
one might make certain exceptions regarding music or videos
because of the *performance* of the work, not because of
the work itself, further mangling things.
(For the record: Beethoven died in 1827; any of his
works are now public domain AFAIK, and have been for over
a century. Yet they are still loved by classical music
fans, and it would be very unlikely that his works would
be confused with, say, Tchaikovski's, modern rap artists,
or an artist from, say, Planet Zaniboa [if SETI ever finds
anyone out there].)
>
> RIAA, MPAA urge pro-copyright vows from presidential candidates
Gee, what a surprise.
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | One question, for instance, asks: "How would you promote
> | the progress of science and creativity, as enumerated in
> | the U.S. Constitution, by upholding and strengthening
> | copyright law and preventing its diminishment?"
> `----
Gods what a mangled tangled question that is. The exact phrase is
from Article I, Section 8, paragraph 8:
1 The Congress shall have power...
8 To promote the progress of science and useful arts,
by securing for limited times to authors and inventors
the exclusive right to their respective writings
and discoveries;
This doesn't include relicensing issues, clearly. That may be
where the problems lie; the general flow is:
[a] Artist creates copyrighted work.
[b] Artist sells rights to work to RIAA member.
[c] RIAA member sells right to *play* the work to general public,
under limited contractual rights (e.g., "do not distribute,
do not modify, do not resell").
[d] A member of the general public abrogates the contract.
[e] Now what?
>
> http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9821141-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
>
>
> Is Sarko Uxorious?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | What this neglects to take into account is the fact that
> | falling into the public domain is a gain for the public -
> | and hence the actual moment when it becomes part of the
> | "national pop heritage" - and that the gain vastly outweighs
> | any minimal effect it has on ageing rockers' royalties.
I'm not sure copyrighted works should ever fall into the
public domain, if only out of respect for the song artists
(and avoidance of confusion later -- who really wrote
Shakespeare's works?)
However, that doesn't mean they should be able to restrict
its distribution, perhaps, or realize profits therefrom.
Modification copyrights would be owned by the modifiers.
Complicated, no? ;-)
> | Unfortunately, with this action, as with others (including the
> | "three strikes and you're out" approach to fighting
> | filesharing), Sarkozy shows himself to be an old man -
> | however young his new wife may be.
> `----
>
> http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2008/02/is-sarko-uxorious.html
>
>
[snip for brevity]
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #2239120:
void f(char *p) {char *q = p; strcpy(p,q); }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
