Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Louigi Verona <louigi.verona@...>
Cc: <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 - 4:05 pm

--e89a8fb1f9d0f5015c04d58930eb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Feb 12, 2013 11:12 PM, "Louigi Verona" wrote:

Aggressive to whom? It doesn't answer the concern I raised.

Suppose: I own a DVD burner and a stack of blank DVDs. Kinsella would say
that it's my right to do *anything I want* with these material goods. If I
want to increase the value of the blank DVDs by printing onto them content
created by someone else, that's *just fine* because I own the material
goods. If I then sell these newly-valuable DVDs for higher than the cost of
the blank ones, I am earning a profit. The work that I did to earn that
profit is a tiny iota of the work that went into the content that I used,
but I am making money off of it and I am not paying the people who did the
hard work.

I benefit, but I didn't pay (either by paying the author or by adding my
own work to make something new, as Fair Use or Creative Commons allow).
That's... theft. And the author is justified in feeling violated. If it is
an aggressive act to punish me for using MY dvd burner to make money from
someone else's work, why is it not an aggressive act to steal that work in
the first place? Kinsella has a simple answer: Possession is everything.
Creative labor counts for nothing. Like all simple answers to hard
problems, it's wrong.

Ask a third grader if it's right for his desk mate to get a grade for work
that he didn't do. That will tell you what is fair by common sense.

It's a necessary consequence of Kinsella's argument that some idiot with a
DVD burner can spend a few hours copying content he didn't create, and he
has exercised his inviolable property right while the people who made that
profit possible -- on the basis of years of training and practice -- are
screwed. They get nothing. If this is fair, then fairness has no meaning.
(I am ignoring your follow-up email for this reason. To respond to it would
not further the discussion.)

(Note here, I'm beating Kinsella at his own game. His main stratagem is to
start with assertions that seem to be common sense, and lead them to a
surprising conclusion. I've done that to his premises, leading to the
conclusion that certain forms of theft deserve legal protection. Common
sense objects to the conclusion, making it highly likely that either the
premises or the reasoning, or both, are mistaken.)

Copyright is not a good solution, and the media industry's abuse of
copyright is appalling. But the failure of copyright to solve the problem
does not mean that there is no problem.

> As pointed out on my site, producing IP is necessary. How will people get
paid?

copyright law is
movie directors.

Like you, I don't know what is the solution. I simply object to Kinsella's
denial that creative labor is worth anything.

hjh

--e89a8fb1f9d0f5015c04d58930eb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Feb 12, 2013 11:12 PM, "Louigi Verona" <louigi.verona@gmail.com> wrot=
e:

e.
Aggressive to whom? It doesn't answer the concern I rais=
ed.
Suppose: I own a DVD burner and a stack of blank DVDs. Kinse=
lla would say that it's my right to do *anything I want* with these mat=
erial goods. If I want to increase the value of the blank DVDs by printing =
onto them content created by someone else, that's *just fine* because I=
own the material goods. If I then sell these newly-valuable DVDs for highe=
r than the cost of the blank ones, I am earning a profit. The work that I d=
id to earn that profit is a tiny iota of the work that went into the conten=
t that I used, but I am making money off of it and I am not paying the peop=
le who did the hard work.

I benefit, but I didn't pay (either by paying the author=
or by adding my own work to make something new, as Fair Use or Creative Co=
mmons allow). That's... theft. And the author is justified in feeling v=
iolated. If it is an aggressive act to punish me for using MY dvd burner to=
make money from someone else's work, why is it not an aggressive act t=
o steal that work in the first place? Kinsella has a simple answer: Possess=
ion is everything. Creative labor counts for nothing. Like all simple answe=
rs to hard problems, it's wrong.

Ask a third grader if it's right for his desk mate to ge=
t a grade for work that he didn't do. That will tell you what is fair b=
y common sense.
It's a necessary consequence of Kinsella's argument =
that some idiot with a=A0 DVD burner can spend a few hours copying content =
he didn't create, and he has exercised his inviolable property right wh=
ile the people who made that profit possible -- on the basis of years of tr=
aining and practice -- are screwed. They get nothing. If this is fair, then=
fairness has no meaning. (I am ignoring your follow-up email for this reas=
on. To respond to it would not further the discussion.)

(Note here, I'm beating Kinsella at his own game. His ma=
in stratagem is to start with assertions that seem to be common sense, and =
lead them to a surprising conclusion. I've done that to his premises, l=
eading to the conclusion that certain forms of theft deserve legal protecti=
on. Common sense objects to the conclusion, making it highly likely that ei=
ther the premises or the reasoning, or both, are mistaken.)

Copyright is not a good solution, and the media industry&#39=
;s abuse of copyright is appalling. But the failure of copyright to solve t=
he problem does not mean that there is no problem.

ow will people get paid?
right law is
nd movie directors.
Like you, I don't know what is the solution. I simply ob=
ject to Kinsella's denial that creative labor is worth anything.
hjh

--e89a8fb1f9d0f5015c04d58930eb--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, James Harkins, (Tue Feb 12, 2:28 pm)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Tue Feb 12, 3:54 pm)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Tue Feb 12, 3:52 pm)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Tue Feb 12, 3:12 pm)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, drew Roberts, (Tue Feb 12, 11:35 pm)
[LAU] Changerd: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Wed Feb 13, 2:46 pm)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, James Harkins, (Tue Feb 12, 4:05 pm)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Thu Feb 14, 5:13 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Brendan Jones, (Thu Feb 14, 2:42 pm)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Tue Feb 12, 5:54 pm)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Tue Feb 12, 6:16 pm)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Tue Feb 12, 3:22 pm)