Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
Cosign. The idea that the two options are either a free and open Internet or totalitarian regimentation is a false dichotomy. There is another option-that of ordered liberty and the rule of law. That's been the way of Western civilization since invention of the US constitution ( which had IP rights baked right in-the Bill of Rights was added AFTER the IP rights clause).
There is also this from the UN Declaration of Rights :
Quote:
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
From the POV of the UN, pirates aren't the harmless pests or "freedom fighters" as many on this forum believe: rather, they are human rights violators pure and simple.
Extending the rule of law to the Internet is going to be next step in the evolution of the Internet. Its inevitable and even better than that, its the right thing to do. We don't know how many artists have been afraid to put their work on the Internet because they're afraid it will be ripped off, but the number must surely be more than zero.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
Actually, copyright is quite enforceable if the courts and law enforcement have jurisdiction. Once governments work out their jurisdictional issues, then dodging the law by locating servers and bank accounts in foreign countries won't work any more. The long arm of the law will once again be inescapable,and artists and creators will once more have their rights upheld as envisioned by the UN Declaration of Rights.
|
Stonetools you've taken the UN statement way out of context ..... it refers to the attribution of and acknowledgement of ownership of material.
Removing an author's details, or denying their existence, is not an issue under contention in this thread.