Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The analogy is to ascertain how to react to matters of law when technology changes the rules.
do you change the law to accommodate?setting aside them 2 dudes freaky behaviour I'd still be keen on hearing matthew's and cameron's response to the analogy based on reacting to law when technology makes it difficult to police. not that it is exactly what is happening re isp and media, its just an analogy to examine part of the equation from a different perspective.
-
Really Rob that's incredibly naive.
I said
most of our laws have progressively been put in place to protect the members of society fairly, or at least that's the idea.
the last part of that sentence is "or at least that's the idea".
I'm all to aware of evil big business twisting the course of fair and just, but I don't think wanting enforcement of copyright is the same as backhanders for warmongers.The principle which benefits the big and the small is "don't take what isn't yours".
We know full well that when we download a movie without paying for it we're taking something which we are expected to pay for. there's no coating it in corporate evil, its a simple breach of what we know is wrong under our current laws. its done cos no one is stopping us.saying
Sadly society often legislates to support those with the biggest voice and the most money to push their case.
in reference to attempts to stem media piracy is just being melodramatic.
I can understand why one would want to stem it and I don't think there's any level of corporate evil intrigue in the basic reason for doing so.
There may be many other sneaky things major labels do and many many indie labels don't do but pushing for enforcement of copyright isn't one of them.If implemented properly it benefits across the board, corrupt majors and naive teen synth bands alike.at the expense of the people who make the music, that you seem keen to throw them.
you're going to have to explain that one to me cos you were the label with the major distro. I was the one that avoided it, to my detriment I'll agree. I've never got into bed with them so how am I corporate evil now?.
I'm not throwing anyone at anything, never have.
I'm questioning your logic on 'attempts to stem piracy = corporate evil.I'm not questioning that there is corporate evil, just whether this is it.
It seems a clear case of trying to enforce a law to me. how ever failed an attempt it might be.
-
Thanks Grant,
It's ok, I don't take their comments to heart, but .......they are a little freaky.as for t'other 2's inference of offending simon, he's got my personal email, as I have his, and I'm sure he'd let me know if he thought I was insulting him, ie we have a relationship outside of discussion groups that isn't going to be disrupted by words in here, the man can handle a discussion by himself. he'll say if he's offended and light ribbing from me ain't going to ruffle his feathers.
-
It is currently illegal to copy a CD to you computer. Changes to the Copyright Act that are in progress will make that simple action legal.
is this a case of simon's
legislates to support those with the biggest voice and the most money to push their case.
or a case of putting into place what is right and fair.
I don't think that's the same as copying a movie and distributing it freely.
in relation to the matter transportation analogy the object is not copied, its taken. The analogy is to ascertain how to react to matters of law when technology changes the rules.
do you change the law to accommodate?a side not. the value of a film or a recording of music is in it potential income, ie a 200 million dollar movie's value is not in the single instance of it, its in the potential instances of exposure people are prepared to purchase under normal legal circumstances. illegal copying is "stealing" from potential income.
-
just out of interest sacha although I am ignoring you, how old are you?
-
Troll is as troll does.
I thought you'd be into this one mark cos its sci fi,
but its not mythical woodland creatures. sorry, maybe next time I can slip in a leprechaun or something for you. I know you like that shit.
-
Copyright is civil law, theft of real property is not. This has been explained here many times.
not asking you,
using lateral thinking, feel free to sit this one out. -
FFS, how hard is it to understand the difference between taking something and copying it?
FFS how hard is to understand the current laws. enforcing the current laws.
we don't have to make a distinction between taking and copying cos the current laws saw copying = illegal.
Its just un enforced for now and we're about to enter a situation where further attempts are going to be made to enforce them, how ever problematic that might be.I gave you (well not you cos I thought we'd agreed not to acknowledge each others existence and I specifically addressed my scenario to matthew although I'd like cameron's take on it too,) a hypothetical situation to put the current situation in a similar but different light and see the response to that. so how's about you let matthew deal with it. ffs, please.
he's the one that is saying he objects to IP level policing cos its too much work for his mates.
-
Sadly society often legislates to support those with the biggest voice and the most money to push their case.
what comic book world do you live in. most of our laws have progressively been put in place to protect the members of society fairly, or at least that's the idea. they're not necessarily supposed to favour the majority, but enforce the general concept of protecting the individual, fairly. thats the idea behind it, right?
There was that anti slavery one, the don't go murdering people one, the don't steal what belongs to someone else one, something to do with don't violate a person in a way contrary to their wishes, etc etc. some classics in there and plenty of legislation to try and deal with various ways individuals try and get round the intent of the law to try and benefit themselves.
the legislation you're objecting to is the one dealing with 'don't take things from other people that is not yours. kind of a foundation law for the society we live in. shall we get rid if it?
-
thought piece for you matthew.
in the near future scientist perfect matter transportation.
it works on a similar structure as present day internet transfers data in that matter is transported through a network of channels run through service providers who allow you to transport physical items from one point to another. The networks are controlled by the services providers.Trouble is some devious buggers figure they can open a link into various places and transport items of value to new locations to benefit themselves essential using the new technology for theft.
The police are pretty powerless to stop it cos they don't know where the thieves are going to target, or where they are. They're nicking from peoples homes, museums, galleries, sidewalks and service stations.
The service providers say they're not responsible for what happens on their networks.
how would you address this situation?
would you make all property shared to keep pace with developments in technology so these people wouldn't be stealing anything as no one owns anything. ie change the law to match the behaviour? make it the laws fault and change the law.
would you make the operators of the channels that people are stealing things through (service providers) responsible for making sure their traffic is in keeping with the laws of the time?
would you say its the individuals problem to deal with the possibility that they will be targeted and not the responsibility of society to enforce current laws for all of its citizens, just the majority, and not where it seems a bit of a bother to keep order?
you may have your own solutions.