On Sunday 29 July 2007, Dotan Cohen wrote: > On 29/07/07, Larry Garfield <larry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 1) Something can be illegal without it being theft. The idea that "if > > it's not theft then it must be OK" is the bullshit argument that I am > > pointing out as bullshit. > > That's a valid point, but you are playing lawyer's games. "It's not > theft, it's QQQ, which is different from theft in X Y and Z". Nobody > likes lawyers or their games. Call it what you will, copyright > infringement is taking something without paying for it. You can call whatever you want anything you want, but that doesn't make it true. For instance, no, copyright infringement is NOT "taking something without paying for it". Copyright infringement is duplicating "an expression of an idea that is fixed in a medium" without the permission of the copyright holder. Money doesn't enter into it. If copyright infringement were "taking something without paying for it", then anyone who's ever installed PHP is guilty of copyright infringement unless they sent Rasmus a check. That is, of course, nonsense. > > 3) At no point in this conversation have I ever said that I engage in or > > support copyright infringement, and I am insulted that you would accuse > > me of such without any evidence or justification to back it up. > > You are insinuating it. And you are making things up. > I was also accused of supporting copyright > infringement earlier in the thread, yet I was not insulted. Don't be > so sensitive. There are bigger jerks than me on the Internet. And I > was not targeting you specifically. I was targeting your comments. > > > I am pointing out that you are saying things that are *factually > > inaccurate by the laws of the United States*. And for that you accuse me > > of copyright infringement and being immoral? That is without a doubt the > > most offensive comment I've seen on this list so far. I would say I > > expect an apology, but given that you fall back on insulting someone's > > ethics just because they don't buy into the same lie that the media > > cartels have been spreading that you do I won't hold my breath. > > I never said anything about the laws of the United States. I don't > even live there, what do I care about their laws? I am, however, a > moral human being, and that is my motivation. I am not as familiar with the laws of Canada, the EU, or Australia (I'm assuming you're probably in one of those), but my understanding is that the law is similar in those countries, except less restrictive on duplication than US laws are; at least for now. > > Really, I had expected more mature commentary from the adults on this > > list. > > So did I. I expect adults to display morality and values. It's not just a simple lawyer game. The distinction does make a difference. Here's why: A great many people -- myself included but also the Creative Commons folks, the FSF, many open source developers, and many others -- believe the current system of copyright law to be fundamentally flawed. Not that we shouldn't have copyright, but that the current form of copyright is broken. A work restricted for an entire generation after the original author is dead? "Digital Restriction Management" software that makes even Fair Use a felony? Retroactively extending copyright terms? Making experimentation with either art or technology either prohibited or prohibitively expensive? Yes, broken. As many people in this thread have already stated, most artists/authors don't actually benefit from this system. The public certainly doesn't. The only people who actually benefit from it are the Robert Igers (Disney President, CEO, and COO) and Britney Spears of the world. Those people, however, have spent the last 40 years trying to convince people that copyright is really "property", and therefore is a moral right as inviolate as Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. Witness your own reply, where you quite openly accuse me of not having "morality and values" because I dare say that copyright infringement is not a mortal sin. You have bought into a lie. And the rank-and-file artists and authors of the world do not benefit from perpetuating that lie. The current direction the law is moving, toward more restrictions on the exchange of information, is bad for anyone who isn't Robert Iger or Britney Spears. That's why it is important to confront and correct that lie. It must be corrected before copyright can be sanely reformed to benefit the public (its supposed goal) and original artists/authors, not a select few mega-corps. At no point have I said that copyright infringement is not illegal. At no point have I said that copyright infringement is a good thing. At no point have I encouraged people to engage in copyright infringement. At every point, I have pointed out what the law actually says, and why it says it. And for that, I am accused of having no morality and values. Yes, I do take this issue very seriously, as should anyone who works in an information-creating job. I highly recommend Larry Lessig's book "Free Culture": http://free-culture.cc/ You can even download it free, not for money, legally, without it being copyright infringement. How about that. -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 larry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ICQ: 6817012 "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." -- Thomas Jefferson -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
