Neither true or false, it's a slogan
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| henri Jul 05, 2010 3:26 AM EDT |
"Copyright is theft" is neither true or false. It's a slogan, a deliberate exaggeration for political purposes. Not too dissimilar from "Abortion is murder" or "Property is theft". The point of the slogan is to encourage feverish support and discourage careful thinking. Lots of the other threads on this article contain both feverish support (for opposition as well as agreement) and careful thinking. Sometimes both in the same post! My position: please don't pollute the social space with slogans. For example, I think copyright is not the same thing as author's rights. Where in the bellow and smoke of the `debate' is there space for keeping that in mind? Here's another slogan: ' "Copyright is theft" equals "Papparazi are kidnappers" ' which is an adaptation of something I saw on Groklaw this morning: if copyright is theft, is it kidnapping to photograph some-one without their permission? Some people *want* their stuff copied, some people will do anything to get on a photo, and others will charge a fat fee for the same. Regardless of how much money you think ought to change hands and how the market for such exchanges should be regulated, it really doesn't help to reduce the debate to the truth/falsity of slogans. |
| TxtEdMacs Jul 05, 2010 7:58 AM EDT |
henri, From the spelling alone i get the sneaking suspicion that means your French*. Gods, just preening in the glow of past history filled illustrious rational thinkers. What do you call it? Yeh, philosophers but remember what they did to Socrates? Shut him up fine, even his followers had to write in code that may not have been understood until very recently. Now that's effective. Kept the rabble in line. Another thing, LXer and most of the commentators are U.S. based where irrationality rules. Just look at the meaningless slogans that propel our political debate. Clear thinking just confuses the electorate. Here in America we believe in what we believe that we know in the gut is truth. Therefore, we are not easily confused by either facts or logic. We have an innate sense what is good for us personally, alone and that's just got to be the way it is. So quit with the lectures our minds are made up and we know whatever we have decided is Right. Moreover, with the recently enhanced second amendment rights with can enforce our conclusions with effective, targeted fire power**. So there, YBT (a.k.a. Your Buddy Txt.) * Why can't you be an honest Henry and American like? ** My only regret was in the past due to my volatile temper and to protect one kid I had to keep my weapon in a safe deposit box that for years was inaccessible due to its location in another state. The problems I could have solved*** had I had the restraint and sufficient target practice. Had I kept the weapon in the glove compartment of my car, I could have changed the world [op. cit. ***]. *** Surely I could have lessened the traffic congestion by offing selected, stupid drivers****. Thus, raising the average intellect in this country. **** Though a few times I might have had to use it on myself for my own transgressions*****, due to being distracted or unattentive. ***** Sad, had I lived an ethical life we would not be having the exploding population problem we are now experiencing. Such is life ... |
| bigg Jul 05, 2010 8:02 AM EDT |
I've stayed away from the topic because talking to the supporters of copyright is like talking to a wall, as they cannot even distinguish between questioning parts of copyright law and supporting unlimited illegal sharing of music. An excellent example of what you're referring to is the AP. An AP 'journalist' will write a story about something Brittany Spears has done. It is illegal to copy that story unless you pay an outrageous amount of money. Yet Ms. Spears receives no compensation, and the only reason the story has value is because of her name. If I were walking around without underwear, believe me, nobody would want to know. This is not to say that she should receive compensation. It's the absurdity of the current system that says the world will fall apart if someone does not have a government provided monopoly over all the profits from her labor. |
| hkwint Jul 05, 2010 8:43 AM EDT |
I didn't know where I read it (I think the story about internet making you dumber), but it seems the same happened after the invention of movable type printing. Monks predicted the world would fall apart and it didn't. If copying books was the job of some monks however, some monks lost their job. I think the internet might do the with todays monks: Publishers / studio's. After the invention of movable type printing, there was a transition period of 'uncertainty' and changes until a new equilibrium with a working model of content creation / distribution and reward was found. I think we're once again in such a transition period, and both publishers / redistributors, consumers and creators try to arrive at a new equilibrium which is best for their 'group'. The interesting thing is, more people become creator because of the internet era. Before I wrote stuff from time to time and earned money by producing drawings (non tangible wealth I suggest?) I thought different about these ideas too. One of the problems in the discussion I think, is models proposed for the internet era which doesn't involve state monopolies, is they haven't been tried yet (at least not in the internet era) so we can not be sure what the result for the different 'roles' will be. That's why lots of people may be hesitant about abolishing state monopolies. In my country, it's pretty much the same with some forms of art: The state has to cut back on expenses, those forms of arts (like ballet, opera and such) are going to receive less subsidy, and they think the world will end. Pretty much because they can't remember how it was before the subsidy era, and because just like the monks they're afraid to loose their jobs, and they're afraid their skills will loose their value. Nonetheless, internet stores more and more start to proof how a world without 'paid copiers' (publishers) where the creators still are rewarded might look like, so I'm pretty sure eventually things will settle. Before equilibrium is reached, some turbulence is sure to occur however. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 05, 2010 10:17 AM EDT |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S16EHfKRLfc |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!