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 <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 8:57 am

--e89a8f3b9d9d3f1c0804d5975559
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:

>

Yes this was the point I was getting to. But I would disagree that
copyright itself binds third parties. The current implementation via
legislation and execution may do so, but that is a mistake in
implementation and not in principle. Implementations can be refined so long
as the principles are sound.

> There are other cases. Public broadcasting is one. You turn on your TV and

It is widely accepted public knowledge that the material on television is
covered under copyright. I know this when I turn it on, except for when I
am very young perhaps. So there is a contract in the same way that as you
say, "some things are just out there". Also the credits for television
programs and films contain explicit copyright information. TV is not public
domain, it is for the most part a private system of distribution that most
mentally functioning adults know the conditions of use for when we buy a
TV.

> The other case is the one I mentioned - someone breaking a contract.

I assume this is explicitly why copyright information is placed at the
beginning of books. And again, this is a flaw with the implementation if
Joe were to be punished in such a case, and not with the principle itself.
Further there *is* a way for Joe to know if he pays attention at all
throughout life, as copyright is a well known fact of cultural life.
Pleading ignorance in such a case is not a sufficient defense.

Additionally, some things are just out there. You invent something. The

My understanding is that this is the reason why the distinction between
ideas and the execution of them is made in copyright and patent law.

Finally, if each time you enter a store and decide to buy a DVD, you were

Seems like a strawman to me. There are reasonable copyright proponents who
don't think suing people for acting on the knowledge of a plotline is a
reasonable thing to do, unless that action consists of seeking monetary
gain by directly copying the original content. Yes, there are also
unprincipled types who will look for any legal justification to gouge and
increase profit lines, but this has very little to do with copyright itself.

To be clear, I don't consider myself a copyright proponent as such. But I
do think that if a group of people wants to enter into a collective
agreement to share content in a certain way, that should be their right. If
I happen to come onto some of that content without having entered into
their covenant, then that community should take action against the one who
made that content available to me. If I take the content in full knowledge
that such a covenant exists, then I am acting inappropriately So yes, I
consider it a bad habit when I download an unpaid-for copy of a copyrighted
artwork in full knowledge that such copyright exists. The reason I might do
it is that I have desire, but desire in itself is not a justification to
deny the value of content. If anything, I think we should recognize that
creative content that produces desire does have real value, and that is the
reason we are so keen to copy it in the first place.

Anyway, this has all gotten way off the Linux Audio track, so I'll leave it
at that.

--e89a8f3b9d9d3f1c0804d5975559
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:2=
1 PM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona@gmail.com> wrote:

Your thinking is in the right directio=
n. Indeed, if you are given a book under contract, then you have to abide b=
y the contract. But let's say you decided to break the agreement and co=
pied 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 nev=
er agreed to the contract.

Yes this was the point I was get=
ting to. But I would disagree that copyright itself binds third parties. Th=
e current implementation via legislation and execution may do so, but that =
is a mistake in implementation and not in principle. Implementations can be=
refined so long as the principles are sound.
=A0There are other cases. P=
ublic broadcasting is one. You turn on your TV and see Harry Potter. You we=
re not presented with any contract. Why should you be bound by any conditio=
ns? If the author of Harry Potter wanted to distribute her book only under =
contract obligations, she should not have let it broadcast on TV.
It is widely accepted public knowled=
ge that the material on television is covered under copyright. I know this =
when I turn it on, except for when I am very young perhaps. So there is a c=
ontract in the same way that as you say, "some things are just out the=
re". Also the credits for television programs and films contain explic=
it copyright information. TV is not public domain, it is for the most part =
a private system of=A0distribution=A0that most mentally functioning adults =
know the conditions of use for when we buy a TV.=A0
=A0
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.
I assume this is explicitly why copy=
right information is placed at the beginning of books. And again, this is a=
flaw with the implementation if Joe were to be punished in such a case, an=
d not with the principle itself. Further there is a way for Joe to k=
now if he pays attention at all throughout life, as copyright is a well kno=
wn fact of cultural life. Pleading ignorance in such a case is not a suffic=
ient defense.
Additionally, some thin=
gs are just out there. You invent something. The other person sees it. He h=
as no contract with you. Why should he restrict actions with his own body a=
nd his own property? What legitimate reason is there to not act on a new kn=
owledge you have?
My understanding is that this is the=
reason why the distinction between ideas and the execution of them is made=
in copyright and patent law. =A0
Finally, if each time you enter a store and decide to buy a DVD, you were e=
xplicitly told that you will not simply be able to share copies, but that y=
ou should agree to not use the knowledge you gain from the DVD and act as i=
f 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.
Seems like a strawman to me. There are reasonable=
copyright proponents who don't think=A0suing=A0people for acting on th=
e knowledge of a plotline is a reasonable thing to do, unless that action c=
onsists of seeking monetary gain by directly copying the original content. =
Yes, there are also unprincipled types who will look for any legal justific=
ation to gouge and increase profit lines, but this has very little to do wi=
th copyright itself.
To be clear, I don't consider myself a =
copyright proponent as such. But I do think that if a group of people wants=
to enter into a collective agreement to share content in a certain way, th=
at should be their right. If I happen to come onto some of that content wit=
hout having entered into their covenant, then that community should take ac=
tion against the one who made that content available to me. If I take the c=
ontent in full knowledge that such a covenant exists, then I am acting=A0in=
appropriately=A0 So yes, I consider it a bad habit when I download an unpai=
d-for copy of a copyrighted artwork in full knowledge that such copyright e=
xists. The reason I might do it is that I have desire, but desire in itself=
is not a justification to deny the value of content. If anything, I think =
we should recognize that creative content that produces desire does have re=
al value, and that is the reason we are so keen to copy it in the first pla=
ce.=A0
Anyway, this has all gotten way off the Lin=
ux Audio track, so I'll leave it at that.

--e89a8f3b9d9d3f1c0804d5975559--

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)