Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Yup. I don't even have the freedom to practice my craft without it being stolen, thanks to all you freedom fighters.
This accusation is uncalled for, incidentally.
And I believe the accurate statement would be that you don't have adequate protection for your legal rights over ephemeral goods to secure the financial viability of the practice of your craft. Insofar as that is "thanks to" any of us opposing the currently suggested measure in its current form, you would first of all have to be deliberately setting aside the matter that it isn't even in effect yet and thus can only affect the future of your financial security, not its present. People have made their voice heard in the past when an enforcement measure has gone too far, and ultimately it will be treated according to the democratic process. The same process that extended legal rights over ephemeral goods in the first place, and which always determines the protections and enforcement measures that are to be in place. It's not a process I'm overly fond of, but there seems to be a consensus that it is the lesser evil on the table.
Quite simply put, if your rights cannot be protected without attacking innocent people, I cannot fault other people for not wanting to protect them. I believe, however, that your rights can be protected to a much better extent than today, without attacking or even inconveniencing innocent people. Complete protection is not feasible, but there is absolutely a shot at improving the current situation. Doing the research and participating in the process to arrive at a bill that takes both the producers, consumers and bystanders into account, while obviously not trivial, is the way to go. I'm unwilling to make the assumption that you would rather do harm to bystanders than participate in lawmaking that directly affects you.
Besides, I know you're more than capable of doing the research, which is more than can be said about the politicians that have been involved with the bill so far. And they shouldn't have to be, as theirs is the domain of principle, not the domain of practice. However, when the practice requires dismantling the digital age and reassembling it, with unspecified parties paying for it (it's clear the beneficiaries are not among the candidates to pay), the cost to society is too high. At that point, others need to step in and provide the politicians with advice on a better resolution.
The analogy is accurate: closing a library for one of their books quoting Anne Rice fan fiction (yes, she does have an established and solid reputation for abusing her rights, contacts and standing far beyond what is provided for under law; she would be requiring such a library to close down if she could, going by her track record, and this law permits digital equivalents of that).
Also, please don't mistake my frequently directing my replies to you for an attack.
I think highly of you on several levels. That is why I am attempting to get a point across which doesn't seem to have gotten across, or to figure out where the difference of opinion lies. Clearly, it's not a difference of opinion on whether we're interested in having our respective I.P. claims enforced better. That should, in principle, put us on the same side, nominally. On which different points do we diverge? That's what I'm curious about.
Health,
al-Aswad.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: SOPA and PIPA info - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread