Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
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 theose 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...)
|
You and I are in agreement over wanting even-handedness... but I think you mean
in the law. Metaphors should be used to create that even-handedness and
inspire fair laws. If the laws are not fair, we're using the wrong metaphors.
And I know I haven't directly addressed it, but I agree it's true that we've allowed the metaphor of the Almighty Dollar to trump all other metaphors on the table... and that needs to be addressed. I do believe, however, that there
may be some areas in which there is nothing wrong with extending copyright, if the continued charging of a property does not constitute a detriment to or burden on society (which is where I'd place any material created by Disney, for instance). I think it's worth debating. With the right metaphors involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr ploppy
Just to expand on this, books have always had a high ratio of readers to buyers. That problem doesn't exist with the one reader per sale model of ebooks with DRM. So a certain amount of slippage through unauthorised downloading doesn't really matter.
|
That's a slippery slope, like saying "a little bit of speeding doesn't matter." The problem is, it doesn't stop there.