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 - 9:07 am

--20cf301d420ef93e3c04d597782d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

"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."

"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."

Contract is always a two-side thing. A contract which is presented to me as
an ultimatum is not a contract. I may well be aware of copyright, but I am
not obliged to agree to it. So I do not plead ignorance, I plead
disagreement.
Do you propose I do not watch TV? If yes, it is the burden on content
creators and distributors to exclude unwanted public from their services,
not mine.
It is as if someone says that I can only use smth under particular
conditions and then throws this something into my window without me
agreeing first. And he then feels he has the right to sue me or consider me
to behave unfairly.

"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."

I would agree with this under particular circumstances. Under other
circumstances this might not be the case. It hugely depends on the
situation.
But what you are describing is voluntary interactions. I am all for that. I
am against copyright, which is an interaction from the state.

--20cf301d420ef93e3c04d597782d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"It is widely accepted public knowledge that the material on televisio=
n=20
is covered under copyright. I know this when I turn it on, except for=20
when I am very young perhaps. So there is a contract in the same way=20
that as you say, "some things are just out there". Also the credi=
ts for=20
television programs and films contain explicit copyright information."=
"Further there is a way for Joe to know if he pays atte=
ntion at=20
all throughout life, as copyright is a well known fact of cultural life.
Pleading ignorance in such a case is not a sufficient defense."Contract is always a two-side thing. A contract which is presented to me =
as an ultimatum is not a contract. I may well be aware of copyright, but I =
am not obliged to agree to it. So I do not plead ignorance, I plead disagre=
ement.
Do you propose I do not watch TV? If yes, it is the burden on content creat=
ors and distributors to exclude unwanted public from their services, not mi=
ne.It is as if someone says that I can only use smth under particular c=
onditions and then throws this something into my window without me agreeing=
first. And he then feels he has the right to sue me or consider me to beha=
ve unfairly.
"But I do think that if a group of people wants to enter into a=20
collective agreement to share content in a certain way, that should be=20
their right. If I happen to come onto some of that content without=20
having entered into their covenant, then that community should take=20
action against the one who made that content available to me. If I take=20
the content in full knowledge that such a covenant exists, then I am=20
acting=A0inappropriately."I would agree with this under partic=
ular circumstances. Under other circumstances this might not be the case. I=
t hugely depends on the situation.But what you are describing is volunt=
ary interactions. I am all for that. I am against copyright, which is an in=
teraction from the state.

--20cf301d420ef93e3c04d597782d--

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)