Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan
You're missing the point of the document: Without agreement on what "copyright infringement" means to each of us, there is no agreement on how to treat or enforce it. That's where the metaphors come in, and why everyone has a different opinion on whether CI applies to them, should be enforced by them, should be redefined by them, etc, etc. Use of the wrong metaphors creates improper shading of arguments, misunderstanding and division... what we have at this moment.
Think of the statement: "Curfew after dark." Without a clear mutual understanding of what "dark" means, the statement can't be enforced. How dark is dark? What if there's a light on? How much light? What if it's infra-red light? etc.
We use metaphors to frame an understanding of difficult concepts with simpler, already-understood concepts. We need the proper metaphors applied to the legal arguments in order to come to a mutual understanding of the issues involved. Without that understanding, we will continue to tread the same water we've been treading over ebooks for the past decade.
|
Steve, I merely want those metaphors to be even-handed. When a copyright is issued, (
de facto or
de jure), both parties agreed to the terms
at the time of the creation/copyright. Those terms, and no others, should apply. Any addition to those terms is as much of an infringment (theft, whatever metaphor you want to use) as somebody downloading a torrent.
Just because powerful entities bribed, (and I won't mince that word), governments to infringe upon the public's right may be legal, but it's just as much a moral crime. No more, no less.
Shucks, a government could vote to shoot me for snoring. That, too, would be legal. I don't think anybody around here would say it's right or moral. (Although, some might cheer the government on in my case...)