Quote:
Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Arguing that copyright terms are too long doesn't justify the abolishment of copyright. The technology exists to make perfect digital copies of any released movie or DVD immediately after the copyright owner makes the product available. Are you honestly saying that you think it's perfectly ok for anyone that wishes to should be able to buy the current release from, say, Bruce Springsteen, make perfect digital copies, and make them available freely for download? You really think that this should be legal, and that it is morally ok, and that it is fair to Bruce Springsteen and his contractually bound agents and distributors?
If so, we're so far apart on our interpretation of what the law should be that I don't know that we can even have a discussion about it.
|
First of all, the mere fact that we're not accusing the other of being an
ignorant/naive left wing "liberal" extremist is a good start towards a healthy debate. I sense that this isn't hopeless. However, I do get the sense that you're not really reading my posts...
I didn't quite say that I advocate the abolishment of copyright law and it's ilk (the latter I dislike more than the former). I'm still undecided whether they are needed or not and would settle for copyright of a limited time. The original length of 15 years (or something like that) wasn't bad.
The technology does exist to make perfect copies of artists work but this is generally not what's being distributed. What's being distributed, mp3's and DivX movies, are approximations of the original work. Good approximations, to be sure, but only approximations. Of course, these approximations can be copied, perfectly...
I suspect that it's these approximations that you mostly speak of when you complain about mass "piracy" (again, I hate that term). After all, this started with internet downloading and, I assure you, no one downloads music CD's (data CD's are a different story...) or original MPEG2 movies.
As to your Bruce Springsteen example, I'm tempted to say yes (remember, I'm undecided?). I mean, there are two ways of thinking about this.
Does Bruce really own music? The way some words are strung together or the length and tone of some tunes. Should it be illegal for me to hum
Born in the USA while walking down the street? Should it be illegal for me to sing this song to my friends, or family, or my friends' families? Does Bruce really own all this? Not just a piece of plastic that can make these sounds but the ability to make these sounds at all? Doesn't that seem kind of weird and scary?
What about freedom of speech? I have the right to communicate anything I like to anyone, don't I? I have data and I wish to share this data with someone and, yet, Bruce thinks he can censor me?
Perhaps you'd be surprised to learn that it is perfectly legal in Canada to copy my CD's, even if it's not for personal use? If you're interested, I can tell you why. It's actually pretty funny, much like a lot of Canadian law...
I couldn't help but notice that you didn't answer my question about why there was an expiry date on copyright. Is that because you don't know? Or that you don't think it's relevant? Or that it's uninteresting? I bring it up because a lot of how I feel on the subject can found in this aspect of copyright law. There
is a reason why copyright law was supposed to expire. Why didn't they just say "It's unfair to Bruce Springsteen, and others like him, to let just anyone copy his work so we're giving him the copyright to it for now and til the end of time!" Why not, indeed...