MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Court Rules That File-Sharing Service Infringed Copyrights

riemann42 · 05-18-2010, 01:59 AM

It's good to see limewire go down! I hate these sights that somehow think it is their god-given right to get in the way of an artist trying to make a living, call it free speech, when it is really free beer they want.

This talk about author's rights to make a living I find fascinating. I think peoples view on this is a mirror in some respects to their approach to politics and life. And like politics, at the fringes you might as well be the same....

So, take my opinion, and call me a communist, etc...

1) An artist has a right to charge for his/her creation and distribute it in a way and for a price he/she see's fit, within reason (see 5).

2) A consumer has a moral responsibility to respect this right. A consumer can decide not to consume (except in the case of Lady Gaga, which seems to be pushing at me from all directions...).

3) Corollary to (1): Any talk about "Monopolies" or even grumbling about Distribution Models (as fun as it is to hate the RIAA, publishers, etc) is ridiculous and non-nonsensical in regards to art. Their are exceptions, as in when publisher, RIAA, etc. are not respecting (1).

4) Extension of (2): A consumer, in addition to having a moral responsibility to respect an artists wishes regarding (1), should seek to consume art in such a way which compensates artists and contributes to the artists ability to continue to produce art. In other words, Used Books / CDs / etc. should be avoided when possible, as a courtesy to the artist. I think as we move to Digital, an artist desire to be compensated in a way he/she see's fit can be extended in ways it has not been possible before, as we have tended to view art as transferable in a way digital media is not.

5) Corollary to (1): The law and the implementation of the law should strive to recognize (1), while still acknowledging fair use and legitimate rights of consumers, such as anti-trust concerns with format, etc. In other words, an Author is within her rights to use Penguin books as a distributor, and allow them to charge $1,000,000 a copy of each book, but is not within her rights to require that the reader read the book using reading glasses sold by the Author's Husband, which offer no advantage over other glasses except the license to read said author's work. In much shorter terms, you have the right to charge be $12, but not to say I have to read it on a Kindle.

So am I a commie? Is being a commie so bad anymore after the capitalist demonstrated what lying, cheating, and stealing in the name of shareholder value gets us?

05-18-2010, 01:59 AM	#43
riemann42 Zealot Posts: 121 Karma: 506 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Spokane, WA Device: eSlick,nook	It's good to see limewire go down! I hate these sights that somehow think it is their god-given right to get in the way of an artist trying to make a living, call it free speech, when it is really free beer they want. This talk about author's rights to make a living I find fascinating. I think peoples view on this is a mirror in some respects to their approach to politics and life. And like politics, at the fringes you might as well be the same.... So, take my opinion, and call me a communist, etc... 1) An artist has a right to charge for his/her creation and distribute it in a way and for a price he/she see's fit, within reason (see 5). 2) A consumer has a moral responsibility to respect this right. A consumer can decide not to consume (except in the case of Lady Gaga, which seems to be pushing at me from all directions...). 3) Corollary to (1): Any talk about "Monopolies" or even grumbling about Distribution Models (as fun as it is to hate the RIAA, publishers, etc) is ridiculous and non-nonsensical in regards to art. Their are exceptions, as in when publisher, RIAA, etc. are not respecting (1). 4) Extension of (2): A consumer, in addition to having a moral responsibility to respect an artists wishes regarding (1), should seek to consume art in such a way which compensates artists and contributes to the artists ability to continue to produce art. In other words, Used Books / CDs / etc. should be avoided when possible, as a courtesy to the artist. I think as we move to Digital, an artist desire to be compensated in a way he/she see's fit can be extended in ways it has not been possible before, as we have tended to view art as transferable in a way digital media is not. 5) Corollary to (1): The law and the implementation of the law should strive to recognize (1), while still acknowledging fair use and legitimate rights of consumers, such as anti-trust concerns with format, etc. In other words, an Author is within her rights to use Penguin books as a distributor, and allow them to charge $1,000,000 a copy of each book, but is not within her rights to require that the reader read the book using reading glasses sold by the Author's Husband, which offer no advantage over other glasses except the license to read said author's work. In much shorter terms, you have the right to charge be $12, but not to say I have to read it on a Kindle. So am I a commie? Is being a commie so bad anymore after the capitalist demonstrated what lying, cheating, and stealing in the name of shareholder value gets us?