Someone wrote:
> The problem is that everyone is used to everything being FREE
> and OPEN that now they are thinking communistic thoughts like
> Richard Stallman and feels every convieveable thing should be
> free and open.
People _individually_choosing_ to work together on what they
_individually_think_ is ideal is very much freedom. It's can very
much survive and even thrive in a capitalist society -- often as a
good counter-balance.
People _forced_ to work together on something the alleged _community_
says is the ideal is where you have communism. It removes _all_
individual choice -- commercial and individual.
Levi Bard <taktaktaktaktaktaktaktaktaktak@gmail.com> wrote:
> Or perhaps, *gasp*, software being Free and Open have opened up our
> eyes to the reality that the interpretation of copyright law needs
> to be reformed.
The term "analog loophole" is a viewpoint post-1976 Copyright Law.
It's _not_ a "loophole," it's "fair use" and "fair access." The
interpretation has changed, as copyright holders see a "new profit
model."
What confuses me is that they say I purchase a "digital right" when I
purchase a CD or book. But when I lose a book or CD, why do I have
to buy another _physical_ copy at _full_ price?! That's because they
use IP when it suits them.
> That sharing with your neighbor *isn't* stealing.
Simultaneous use _is_ stealing.
Borrowing is _not_ stealing.
Reselling is _not_ stealing.
Again, it's not an "analog loophole," it's "fair use."
You have to change the argument around.
It's just like pro-life advocates don't argue anti-choice, and
pro-choice don't argue anti-live.
So if they want to talk "digital rights management," let's call it
"fair digital/consumer rights" in kind.
> That sharing with your neighbor *isn't* the same as boarding
> a ship, killing everyone aboard, and looting it of valuables.
I find it ironic that we spend _more_money_ protecting _media_ IP
than we do on _medical_ IP. I mean, it doesn't take much "research"
to create media -- but the profits on sale of new prescriptions is
_everything_ to future medical R&D. Media needs to "wake up" -- they
aren't saving lives, they aren't doing anything special that needs to
be "protected."
> If sharing information with humanity equates to communism,
Er, um, _remember_ -- there is a difference between sharing _your_ IP
and sharing someone _else_'s IP. Don't confuse the two, that's very
bad for Linux. ;->
> DRM may be evil, but it is certainly not necessary.
How about trusting consumers?
Let's face it, the US consumer gets the shaft because the
overwhelming majority of piracy issues are outside the US.
-- Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com -------------------------------------------------- I'm a Democrat. No wait, I'm a Republican. Hmm, it seems I'm just whatever someone disagrees with.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:06:40 EDT