On 02/13/2013 03:21 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I buy this argument.
>
> Allow me to play devil's advocate, as I'm not sure I fully agree
> with the position I'm about to present.
>
> If I never see your writing, there is no way for me to copy it. In
> order to copy it I must first see it. If you were to make your
> writing available only under a conditional contract of sale
> (copyright) that states the writing is not to be shared with
> anyone else, and that contract of sale is made known prior to any
> exchange of said writing, then the only people that ever see this
> writing and will be "forcefully" bound to the contractual
> agreement are those that agree with it. No one is forced to not
> copy it if they don't buy it, and by buying they enter into a
> contract of sale. In other words, copyright does not try to remove
> things from the public domain, it tries to prevent them from
> entering into the public domain in the first place by restricting
> the sharing of those things to a community of people who respect
> the conditions of it being shared.
>
> The only cases where I feel like your argument could hold is when
> I am forced to read or listen to your work due to public
> broadcasting. However, except for perhaps some severe fascist
> states, it rarely happens that people are forcefully exposed to
> media in the first place that they are then denied the right to
> copy it against their will.
>
>
>
> Your thinking is in the right direction. Indeed, if you are given a
> book under contract, then you have to abide by the contract. But let's
> say you decided to break the agreement and copied the book on the
> Internet or gave it to your friends. All those people made no contract
> with the author and thus they cannot be and should not be bound by the
> contract. What copyright does is bind third parties, which never
> agreed to the contract.
>
> There are other cases. Public broadcasting is one. You turn on your TV
> and see Harry Potter. You were not presented with any contract. Why
> should you be bound by any conditions? If the author of Harry Potter
> wanted to distribute her book only under contract obligations, she
> should not have let it broadcast on TV.
> The other case is the one I mentioned - someone breaking a contract.
> There are other options, like accidents. You leave a book on a bench.
> Unless the book itself contains a full blown contract in it, there is
> no way for Joe who finds the book to know. In fact, even if the
> contract is in the book, Joe did not sign it.
>
> Additionally, some things are just out there. You invent something.
> The other person sees it. He has no contract with you. Why should he
> restrict actions with his own body and his own property? What
> legitimate reason is there to not act on a new knowledge you have?
>
> Finally, if each time you enter a store and decide to buy a DVD, you
> were explicitly told that you will not simply be able to share copies,
> but that you should agree to not use the knowledge you gain from the
> DVD and act as if you have no such knowledge, I am not sure most
> people would agree.
That's why things have copyright notices on them that are very specific
in their form and location.
-- --- My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures: http://www.lateralforce.com My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio, mixing, equipment, etc, is at: http://audioandmore.wordpress.com Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch; und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.' - [Friedrich Nietzsche]
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Wed Feb 13 20:15:12 2013
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 13 2013 - 20:15:12 EET