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

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: michael noble <looplog@...>
Cc: Linux Audio User <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 8:22 am

--14dae9340c0faa99b004d596d577
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

> I'm not sure I buy this argument.

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.
You watch Harry Potter. And, according to the contract a typical copyright
proponent would want you to sign, you hen have no right to act on the
knowledge you have acquired, namely, the plot, ideas, characters. All of
this is knowledge you now have in your brain. Copyright wants you to
pretend you only have this information in read-only format.

--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/

--14dae9340c0faa99b004d596d577
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I'm not =
sure I buy this argument.=A0
Allow me to play devil's advocate, as I'm not s=
ure 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) tha=
t states the writing is not to be shared with anyone else, and that contrac=
t of sale is made known prior to any exchange of said=A0writing,=A0then 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 in=
to a contract of sale. In other words, copyright does not try to remove thi=
ngs 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 thing=
s to a community of people who respect the conditions of it being shared.=
=A0

The only cases where I feel like your argument could ho=
ld is when I am forced to read or listen to your work due to public broadca=
sting. However, except for perhaps some severe fascist states, it rarely ha=
ppens that people are forcefully exposed to media in the first place that t=
hey 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 cont=
ract. But let's say you decided to break the agreement and copied the b=
ook on the Internet or gave it to your friends. All those people made no co=
ntract with the author and thus they cannot be and should not be bound by t=
he 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 dis=
tribute her book only under contract obligations, she should not have let i=
t broadcast on TV.
The other case is the one I mentioned - someone breaking a contract.The=
re are other options, like accidents. You leave a book on a bench. Unless t=
he book itself contains a full blown contract in it, there is no way for Jo=
e 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 t=
here to not act on a new knowledge you have?
Finally, if each time you enter a store and decide to buy a DVD, you we=
re explicitly told that you will not simply be able to share copies, but th=
at 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.
You watch Harry Potter. And, according to the contract a typical copyright =
proponent would want you to sign, you hen have no right to act on the knowl=
edge you have acquired, namely, the plot, ideas, characters. All of this is=
knowledge you now have in your brain. Copyright wants you to pretend you o=
nly have this information in read-only format.
-- Louigi Veronahttp://=
www.louigiverona.ru/

--14dae9340c0faa99b004d596d577--

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, (Wed Feb 13, 2:15 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Feb 13, 6:42 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Ralf Mardorf, (Wed Feb 13, 11:13 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Feb 13, 6:45 am)
[LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Wed Feb 13, 3:30 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Paul Davis, (Wed Feb 13, 3:40 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Wed Feb 13, 4:22 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Paul Davis, (Wed Feb 13, 4:37 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Wed Feb 13, 5:13 pm)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Feb 13, 9:35 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, michael noble, (Wed Feb 13, 7:45 am)
[LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Wed Feb 13, 3:09 pm)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Feb 13, 8:22 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, michael noble, (Wed Feb 13, 8:57 am)
[LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Wed Feb 13, 3:25 pm)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Feb 13, 9:07 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Ralf Mardorf, (Wed Feb 13, 11:28 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Feb 13, 6:49 am)