Quote:
Originally Posted by spellbanisher
Kali Yuga tries to debunk Giggleton's arguments by calling them “Friday afternoon technobabble.” He says that a new technical ability does not create the moral framework to make the action permissible. He uses the ability to go around killing people because he has a gun as an example an activity that is made possible by a technology but is still impermissible. His second point is that the idea that the world will be a better place and that corporate interests will evaporate is ridiculous. He finishes his rebuttal by saying that copyright is a social contract enforced by laws.
As far as his first point, he is correct but only in theory. Possibility does not equal permissibility. But he inadequately connects theory to copyright and sharing. To connect this to his final point, copyright is a social contract enforced by laws because it is generally seen that copyright does society the most good. But no law serves an absolute principle. Every law constrains liberty, but the damage it does to overall liberty is offset by the greater protections its provides. If a law no longer does good than harm, it must be changed or abolished. The question now is whether we should gimp the technology that makes production of information infinitely easy so that creators can profit the way they have always profited. The question isn't even a matter of compensation. It's a question of whether the old method of compensation, the old business model, is the best business model. New technology has always agitated old industries. The moving image was a threat to the stage. The radio and the album was a threat to the live performance. Cable and vcr was a threat to movies. Each time old industries tried to use the law to crush new technologies, and had they succeeded society would be much worse.
In summation, Yuga fails to make an argument. Instead, Yuga assumes that his position is a first principle, when in fact it must be proved. Yuga begs the question.
Yuga's post is number 5. I will continue the review at a later time to see if Carld was correct in his assertion that anti-copyright proponents have yet to make “a cogent, thoughtful and considerate.” We will let the world decide (or the three people who will read this post.) For now I am tired, and though I may still make smartass posts in this thread and other threads, I will continue my review at a later time. Now, I am off to the fortress of pretense.
|
Now to continue my review.
In response to Yuga's post, Giggleton incorrectly notes that copyright has been around for 500 years. He then asserts that Copyright in its current form hinders the dissemination of knowledge. He sees collaboration as the key to ensure the quality of fiction and provides a link to an article that doesn't prove its point; its just an author proposing a little writers club. The idea of the article is that four or five writers get together and contribute whatever they can to the group, stories to be sold, editing, or whatever skills they can provide. They would market each others works and publish their works under the same brand name. After this he asserts that the real criminals in the world are “those who wish to lock the word behind barriers...” Finally, he says any word anywhere can instill hope or a better way of being in the reader, whether the writer agrees or not, and that therefore “There is nothing to be done except to let the word free.”
As far his contention that copyright is directly hindering the dissemination of knowledge, there is not much proof for that. Almost anything a person could possibly want to learn they could on the internet or from a library legally. The works that are being denied to the public are mostly fiction and other commercial works, and he argues that copyright that prevent the dissemination of these works hurts the public good. This assertion is pretty weak too; if anything, there is a glut, not a scarcity, of entertainment media. If anything people consume too much, not too little, creative content. These are just my assertions, but without an adequate argument on his part it is just assertion vs assertion. I believe we would be better off spending less time watching tv and movies and reading throwaway fiction and more time thinking and reading about current and political events. For most people in the world the problem is that there is too much apathy and too many distractions from the things that really matter. But these are just my assertions.
As far as his contention that collaboration is superior to the current publishing regime, I can't say I disagree. I think coops and guilds and writers associations have the potential to be more effective than publishers. But like many other people arguing over copyright, giggleton assumes that the publishing regime and the copyright regime are the same. There is no reason why there can't be writers coops in the current copyright regime, just as there is no reason why publishers could not exist without a copyright regime. And the current copyright regime does not prevent writers from making their works freely available.