When incorrect information (or uninformed opinion, which has occurred
in one of the latest of email responses to "Easy stealing during the
DIGITAL ERA" ) occurs, educating oneself about the legal
ramifications of copyright is not an attempt to introduce "a court of
law" nor "erect a jargon-based scaffolding around it" exclusively.
Such responses are simply one aspect of this discussion and therefore
have validity as such.
The introduction of copyright infringement and its consequences
cannot help but be part of such a forum whether the direction taken
is legal or ethical. A forum titled as this is, does elicit concerns
particularly about the HOTTEST topic of creative rights on the
internet today: the copyright of intellectual property. So there
must be some reference to the legalities of copyright infringement .
If we do not know what is being talked about then this is akin to
critiquing a book without reading it.
Lets keep this forum open to all aspects of this very important
contemporary issue that will most likely dictate copyright protocol
for years to come. AND ALSO it is vital to continue the discussion
aspects of the ethical and moral uses of other peoples work. This is
a huge topic of discussion and there must be room for all points of
view.
Whoever began this forum with the title it has opened a can of worms.
Criticism of others ideas about bringing attention to the expansion
of Digital Image misuse is as important a concern to this topic as to
not discuss these issues but remain within the confines of ethics only.
It is too broad a topic to limit responses.
On Jan 14, 2007, at 10:19 AM, E Berlin wrote:
True, and yet not so true.
I can't count the number of times I've witnessed person B's attempt
to trump
the argument of person A by a purely sophistical attempt to claim
B's own
"expert" status. I often take that as a sign of a lack of
confidence in
one's own argument because it doesn't stand on its own without
erecting a
jargon-based scaffolding around it.
Expert status in no way guarantees one's being correct in any
individual
instance or interpretation. Particularly when it isn't a forum
limited to a
conversation between experts it's probably more fruitful to accept
that the
conversation is to be guided by common sense and freely used
vernacular
speech.
I'm not sure that here it matters so much where the dividing line
stands
between theft and infringement. Since this is not a court of law it's
probably more helpful to discuss it in moral terms rather than
veering off
into legalese. What you all are really talking about is what you
think is
right and wrong, and the references to the law are more used as
evidence
than ends in themselves.
Elliot Berlin
Alexander Georgiadis wrote:
Oh, and fuck the semantics.
Words are the most important tool we have for communicating with other
people, so questions of what they mean are among the most crucial
questions.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/dd-b
Pics: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum,
http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
