R_Chance, are you aware of how the US acquired the Hawaii?
China is imperialist, but the US have little ground to claim that they have done nothing of that.
I'm fully aware of our past mistakes. Yes I'm American, hence the "our". Well, in the interests of full disclosure I'm a product of Anglo-American cooperation :) I teach history. I'm also fully aware of what is going on now. So, because the U.S. made mistakes in the past we should let China victimize other nations now? Sounds like a plan. Well, no, it doesn't. You learn from your past. This isn't about who has been "worse" or "bad". It's about what is happening now. And we are waaay off topic. Sorry, just couldn't let the current Chinese government be held up as a good example of dealing with property issues. Of any kind.
|
Past mistakes?
- Extraordinary rendition
- your military man are always innocent after killing people in incidents caused by their carelessness (look about Cermis).
We can go on for thousand of rows.
China is not a white hat, but trying to dictate other people behaviour from a high horse fail when you don't respect the standards you try to impose to other people.
/end of derail.
If we talk China, we must consider China had a long stagnation/isolation period, they didn't really expand (unless you consider the dozen or so smaller kingdoms that always went down or popped up something not chinese) and they got a heavy damage/scar (social, economic, "spiritual") from colonialist centuries and communism. They were often dominated and conquered, but never had their own colonial empire, nor a chance to shine for many-many centuries.
It is almost the same for the USA. It is a barely newborn nation compared to others, it had a single civil war on its own territory, and some foreign interventions. Since its existence USA expanded on the mainland, but now it also tries to expand its influence and its own "colonialism" through exporting culture, or political influence, not always the peaceful way. Call Iraq what you want but it is a fact that after the invasion Iraqi oil finds its way to US easier as example. Sure it isn't exactly a colony, but close. maybe a vassal state.
China didn't manage what USA already has: To place itself into an exclusive dominant position on its home continent, its own territorial borders are questioned and not even technological modernization is finished (although way better than in last 50 years).
This doesn't mean I agree with any aggressions, but if you dislike/oppose the politics of China then instead of US influence there they should build up a friendly ally in the region to claim and protect a sphere of interest easier there on its own. As example: WW2 is long gone, Japan could be allowed to build up a proper army again, they are the natural/historical/logical rival to China and the only nation able to do so (other than an alternative option of Russia for the job)
Fact is: it has near zero chance Earth will unify under one banner peacefully, too much history of aggression, nationalism, strife, rivalry, past grievances for that. Every successful nation (or just any nation still on the map) today is or was at a time imperialist, powerful, or a colony/puppet. There is no use of pointing with the finger at one nation, when your own is just as likely to do/have done same or worse things. China as example didn't get rid of all native governments/tribes as example, but colonizers and US/Mexico did. There isn't today a single nation that originates from before colonial influence/sphere of interest.
Today, behind curtains dominance of moral standards and active laws are also an important battlefield. US as example tries to get through associations laws in Japan changed, Iran and other arabian nations try to preserve their traditional ways, and these are barely a few examples. Copyright is just a tiny piece of this, just a footnote among what goes on a global scale.
Injecting discussions about US foreign policy is bound to keep the piracy/copyright debate calm, right?
Back to topic: There are secret consultations between the US and the EU (and Canada and Mexico) about ACTA. The US government, backed by the industry, tries to push their version of copyright legislation onto other nations, without going public with their consultations. This would be a case for Wikileaks, if any. The results are probably massive controls and limitations just what can be used in the net. If anything, this is a questionable proceeding, because it probably touches fundamental rights (freedom of information, freedom if speech), and the regulations are cunsulted secretly. Allegedly, some US companies could view the status quo results of the consutations after signing a non-disclosure clause, whereas the members of the European parliament were denied any insights. Especially the probable rule that after breaking the new law three times, you are denied internet access is something that is way out. The Internet is nowadays as essential as TV, radio and newspapers, if not more so, to stay informed and be able to participate in society. Banning you from internet accessis IMO an breach of the individual right for information. This is disproportional to the infringement, which is after all a matter of private rights.
Now say all my friends are lazy bastards, and I hypothetically gave them a players guide, which is free, am I in the wrong?
As I understand it, yes that is wrong. Paizo's preference is for them to download it themselves anyhow - it gives them better data about how people are using their products.
(Not sure if there's anything wrong with opening a paizo.com account on someone else's behalf and handling the free downloads for them).
Hypothetically I might need to go fetch my +1 Bat of evidence smashing.
|
|
One of the problems is that those regulation are thought from the point of view of protecting the "rights" of modern publishers but clash with the rights of reprinting old products.
As an example Tolkien estates have menaced to sue people and publishers for the use of names used in Tolkien works, but most of those names are taken from old north Europe myths, legends and literary material. So using using names from the Poetic Edda and the Prose Edda you run the risk of being sued by Tolkien estates.
Sadly most of the time those lawsuits will be won by the people with the deepest pockets, not by those that are "right".
As I understand it, yes that is wrong. Paizo's preference is for them to download it themselves anyhow - it gives them better data about how people are using their products.
(Not sure if there's anything wrong with opening a paizo.com account on someone else's behalf and handling the free downloads for them).
Giving out another person e-mail address to a commercial activity without his consent? I doubt it is allowed.
I didn't mean without their permission. I just meant doing it all for them.
As I understand it, yes that is wrong. Paizo's preference is for them to download it themselves anyhow - it gives them better data about how people are using their products.
And this is ridiculous, if accurate.
If a copyrighted product is free, there shouldn't be any restriction on it's distribution.
From here:
I prefer PDFs. But, I would have never guessed that printing two or three copies of a free player's guide would break the rules.One answer: We don't *really* care if you print a copy of a free Player's Guide for each person in your gaming group. We *do* care if you try to print copies of everything else you've ever bought for them. Adding a lot of exceptions to the FAQ, though, actually makes it more complicated, which makes it less useful.
Another answer: Frankly, we'd prefer that your players each get their own account and download their own copy anyway. (It's free, after all.) That helps us have a better understanding of the scope and other characteristics of our audience, and it also lets us notify them directly if we update the file for some reason.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget: Free material on a website is often there to encourage people to look at that website.
If I give you a free pdf, you (perhaps) look into the pdf and decide if you like it or not. If you do like it you may look up the website of the producer.
If I tell you 'Hey, on the page of xy you can download a cool free pdf, look it up!', chances are, you get to that website and not only download the pdf but also spend some time looking what else they have to offer.
As I understand it, yes that is wrong. Paizo's preference is for them to download it themselves anyhow - it gives them better data about how people are using their products.And this is ridiculous, if accurate.
If a copyrighted product is free, there shouldn't be any restriction on it's distribution.
Why cant the owner say "this is free, but is provided on condition you not distribute it"?
It's a contract, in my view. They can require you to hop in circles whistling Dixie each time you open it if they want - you either accept or decline their offer. What gives you the right to take their proffered file and ignore the conditions under which they are agreeing to give it to you?
If my computer gets hacked and Paizo thinks they can take me to court when MY property resurfaces on the net they better have a *real* good lawyer... and I mean Jack McCoy tier. Anything less is only going to cost them their (and my) litigation fees.
It would not be worth Paizo's time (or resources) to sue over piracy unless someone made a significant profit by reselling the files. They will likely follow the stipulations in the contract that everyone who has purchased product from Paizo agreed to at some point...most likely by checking a box stating that "I have read and understand these rules" after 57 pages of text that none of read, but probably would have understood if we had bothered to do so.
At that point it will be up to you to decide whether or not it's worth it to hire an attorney to fight the action that Paizo has taken against you.
Why cant the owner say "this is free, but is provided on condition you not distribute it"?
It's a contract, in my view. They can require you to hop in circles whistling Dixie each time you open it if they want - you either accept or decline their offer. What gives you the right to take their proffered file and ignore the conditions under which they are agreeing to give it to you?
They can totally do this. I'm not arguing that they can't. I'm saying that they SHOULDN'T.
It's not a contract. It's copyright law. They hold the copyright. They can restrict the distribution however they see fit, because copyright isn't predicated on sale price of an item.
I just feel that it's ridiculous to restrict distribution of a free item.
Nothing gives me the right to ignore copyright. I've acknowledged this countless times. Please remember this.
I find this disconcerting. Not but a few months ago I purchased some peppers from a large farming company. I enjoyed the peppers quite thoroughly, so I saved the seeds and germinated then planted them. I currently have a plant full of peppers growing in my backyard. I assumed this was legal, but what if buy buying the peppers I had unknowingly entered into a contract with the farmer that was legally binding? I might be okay though because I did not do anything as legally binding as clicking a button on a website... but pretty close.
For some plants what you did could really be "illegal". That is if some one has patented that sort of pepper.
But if you're just using them yourself there isn't a real problem. Only if you try to make money with them.
Brian, while I don't like Bill's aggressive attitude, one thing to keep in mind is what he's ultimately saying is this: how you get things matters.
To you, it does not. The end result is the same, so what's the big deal?
To put the argument you're espousing in another way:
"(In certain circumstances,) the ends* justify the means."His response: "No, they don't. Only go the right way."
This is a reasonably accurate summary.
It's not that the means is unimportant. Certainly, if the means in any way were dangerous or harmful, the means would certainly matter.
And it's not that the ends necessarily "justifies" the means. Just that, in a situation where the outcome is identical to a legal act, and the "illegal" act does not negatively affect anyone or anything, the means doesn't matter.
I'm not sure if I can convey the difference between "justification" and "doesn't matter" very well, if at all. I'm not trying to justify the act, I'm saying that the act (in this very specific circumstance) shouldn't be illegal. There's a difference here.
I'm not siding against you, I'm just trying to show how it could be clear cut to some.
Oh, I understand that, and appreciate it.
What's frustrating is, I'm not advocating breaking the law, as it seems my argument is being twisted to suggest. I'm saying "it's a bad law, and it should be changed" not "it's a bad law, ignore it."
For some plants what you did could really be "illegal". That is if some one has patented that sort of pepper.
But if you're just using them yourself there isn't a real problem. Only if you try to make money with them.
The fact that patent law and copyright has been twisted in such a manner as to allow something like this is absolutely disgusting.
Brian, while I don't like Bill's aggressive attitude, one thing to keep in mind is what he's ultimately saying is this: how you get things matters.
To you, it does not. The end result is the same, so what's the big deal?
To put the argument you're espousing in another way:
"(In certain circumstances,) the ends* justify the means."His response: "No, they don't. Only go the right way."
It's a very lawful v. neutral response.
Oh, ultimately, I don't care if he does or doesn't get things the right way. What anybody taking illegally distributed copies has to do is stop fooling themselves that it's in a gray area and accept what they are doing. It's less mandating that everyone wear the white hat as much as take ownership of their actions. If you're going to wear the black hat, then damn well wear it.
One of the problems is that those regulation are thought from the point of view of protecting the "rights" of modern publishers but clash with the rights of reprinting old products.
As an example Tolkien estates have menaced to sue people and publishers for the use of names used in Tolkien works, but most of those names are taken from old north Europe myths, legends and literary material. So using using names from the Poetic Edda and the Prose Edda you run the risk of being sued by Tolkien estates.
Sadly most of the time those lawsuits will be won by the people with the deepest pockets, not by those that are "right".
Keep in mind that not all Tolkien-based lawsuits come from the Tolkien estates. Saul Zaentz's Middle Earth Enterprises (formerly Tolkien Enterprises) bought the licenses for merchandizing and other media versions of Tolkien's works. And since Saul Zaentz is the guy who sued John Fogerty for writing songs like John Fogerty circa Creedence Clearwater Revival, we can see he's not lawsuit averse. Middle Earth Enterprises activities, particularly recently, show that pretty well.
Just more information for people who claim "you need copyright or people won't do good work".
Just more information for people who claim "you need copyright or people won't do good work".
Linux and Android are two more examples.
Why cant the owner say "this is free, but is provided on condition you not distribute it"?
It's a contract, in my view. They can require you to hop in circles whistling Dixie each time you open it if they want - you either accept or decline their offer. What gives you the right to take their proffered file and ignore the conditions under which they are agreeing to give it to you?
They can totally do this. I'm not arguing that they can't. I'm saying that they SHOULDN'T.
It's not a contract. It's copyright law. They hold the copyright. They can restrict the distribution however they see fit, because copyright isn't predicated on sale price of an item.
I just feel that it's ridiculous to restrict distribution of a free item.
Nothing gives me the right to ignore copyright. I've acknowledged this countless times. Please remember this.
I know. But you haven't said why it's ridiculous. I think it "obviously" isn't. I was pointing out to you that (quite independently of copyright law, just speaking from basic ethical principles) it seems perfectly reasonable, to me anyway, for someone to give you something subject to conditions. Happens all the time, as far as I can see.
"I just feel that it's ridiculous to restrict distribution of a free item."
Why?
I understand you're not arguing its legal. When I said:
"It's a contract, in my view. They can require you to hop in circles whistling Dixie each time you open it if they want - you either accept or decline their offer. What gives you the right to take their proffered file and ignore the conditions under which they are agreeing to give it to you?"
I should perhaps have reworded the final question to "Why should you have the right..."
Just more information for people who claim "you need copyright or people won't do good work".
Sometimes open source works. Sometimes it doesn't. As Bob_Loblaw mentioned Linux and Android are successes although it took Google to make Android a success and the success of Linux is relatively limited (*sigh* I can hear the Linux fans getting ready to pillory me). Before you can make a claim of efficiency you would need data on the relative success of open vs. closed source research projects of a similar nature. Good luck on getting that. Looking through something like Source Forge can be depressing for example. I suspect niche / small projects might benefit from an opensource model while more mainstream ones might be better off closed. But that's a guess.
*edit* And back off topic, if on a slightly different tangent, I go...
if something is free it is free of cost and restrictions and rules too
otherwise it isn't free
|
This is Paizo's stuff, so they get to set the rules, which we all signed the moment we create an account and download from their site. I buy their products and damn well hope that no one I know takes my product and makes it free to use for anyone on the net.
Wanted to state that straight up before I discuss the next issue.
When you have a hard copy of a book, once you're done with it you can now sell it on Ebay or in second hand shops without recourse to breaking contract. Sure, you're not likely to make profit from it, but you are making some money and Paizo isn't. It has prevented a sale for them.
In fact, you can lend your hard copy to as many people as you want, who may in fact then scan and/or photocopy sections of it for use in the game. Again no one can really do anything about this.
Now if said hardcopy gets scanned and thrown up into the ether, it's a big loss of sales for the Paizo staff potentially. Unfortunately, they most likley can't track the source, and therefore can't take action against the owner. This may in fact happen without the original owners knowledge since they may have lent the book in good faith to a player/friend they game with.
The problem for me comes from the fact that they take action against PDF users but not against hard copy users who are in essence doing exactly the same thing. I'm not a lawyer, and I live in Australia so our laws are most likely different. I do, however, believe that contracts need to be applied evenly to all parties or things start getting messy in the legal department. It's a form of discrimination in essence.
So here's my dilemma. I have the opportunity to get some new folks into the hobby. I ran a session for them, and they're hooked. I can't run this more than once, since my time is used up in my normal group. They do however have an older bloke who used to play and is willing to GM for them.
In order to get them started, I want to provide them with the Rise of the Runlelords modules, since I've now finished with them. They can get the rulebooks or PDF's themselves, everyone needs that, but the modules are for the DM, who happens to be cash strepped in terms of a hobby like this.
With hard copy books, no problem at all. With PDF versions (which is all I can afford to buy here in Aus) then I now face possibly losing my access to Paizo for getting another group started. It is an interesting conundrum for me.
I could "lend" them my PDF's, but this is easily able to be hacked or dropped into the net (some of those torrent loaders are horrible for taking files and uploading them without the users being aware of it).
Ultimately the choice is mine, but the two methods of production change the ease of that choice dramatically, despite the fact it's all still Paizo property.
Interesting.
Cheers
Just more information for people who claim "you need copyright or people won't do good work".
Sometimes open source works. Sometimes it doesn't. As Bob_Loblaw mentioned Linux and Android are successes although it took Google to make Android a success and the success of Linux is relatively limited (*sigh* I can hear the Linux fans getting ready to pillory me). Before you can make a claim of efficiency you would need data on the relative success of open vs. closed source research projects of a similar nature. Good luck on getting that. Looking through something like Source Forge can be depressing for example. I suspect niche / small projects might benefit from an opensource model while more mainstream ones might be better off closed. But that's a guess.
*edit* And back off topic, if on a slightly different tangent, I go...
You mean niche projects like curing cancer. Which is what the link I posted was about.
Why?
Because taking two identical items, and classifying one as "legal" and one as "illegal" (or pick whatever word you want to replace in quotes - good/bad, right/wrong, whatever) is completely illogical and unnecessarily complicates matters.
And, before the Goalpost Shifting Union Local 1931 shows up, I want to make it clear that, per this particular situation, I'm specifically talking about a freely downloadable piece of content - be it a Player's Guide from Paizo, or a freely downloadable MP3 from some musician.
I'm NOT discussing for-pay content at the moment (though, many of the same arguments apply).
Applying variant rules to a free item based on how it was obtained does not make any sense.
Were a copyright infringement litigation ever brought against someone "illegally" distributing free PDFs, I'd have to believe that no sane court would ever hear such a case.
|
|
In order to get them started, I want to provide them with the Rise of the Runlelords modules, since I've now finished with them. They can get the rulebooks or PDF's themselves, everyone needs that, but the modules are for the DM, who happens to be cash strepped in terms of a hobby like this.
With hard copy books, no problem at all. With PDF versions (which is all I can afford to buy here in Aus) then I now face possibly losing my access to Paizo for getting another group started. It is an interesting conundrum for me.
I could "lend" them my PDF's, but this is easily able to be hacked or dropped into the net (some of those torrent loaders are horrible for taking files and uploading them without the users being aware of it)
The license on the PDFs is what it is. Personally, I prefer it this way rather than having to run draconian DRM software that only allows me to view the files I download on one, hardware locked machine - it could be much worse than it is.
Yes, at present, there is no way to transfer your PDFs to someone else, legally. Don't 'lend' them, the consequences could be exceptionally bad.
My suggestion is to point this gentleman at Pathfinder Society. Get him running the exceptionally cheap PFS scenarios for this new group. Suggest that he asks for a donation per session that he will put towards buying APs or modules for his group.
Another suggestion is to print out your personal copy of RotRL and give him that. Then delete your PDFs.
This is Paizo's stuff, so they get to set the rules, which we all signed the moment we create an account and download from their site.
They get to set the rules, only as much as statute allows.
|
|
Why?Because taking two identical items, and classifying one as "legal" and one as "illegal" (or pick whatever word you want to replace in quotes - good/bad, right/wrong, whatever) is completely illogical and unnecessarily complicates matters.
And, before the Goalpost Shifting Union Local 1931 shows up, I want to make it clear that, per this particular situation, I'm specifically talking about a freely downloadable piece of content - be it a Player's Guide from Paizo, or a freely downloadable MP3 from some musician.
Well, this is the problem with the English word 'free'. You may download the players guide for zero cost (free). You are not at liberty (free) to redistribute them.
Paizo chooses to allow people to have the PG for zero-cost - their stuff, their choice. They want people to get it from their website and be exposed to the wealth of cool stuff that they have for sale - their stuff, their choice.
Essentially, it's an advertising subsidised loss-leader - it's not 'free'.
Suggest that he asks for a donation per session that he will put towards buying APs or modules for his group.
Another suggestion is to print out your personal copy of RotRL and give him that. Then delete your PDFs.
The first idea is probably the cleanest way to handle this. If the new group is as hooked as you (Wrath) paint them to be, getting 4 bucks for a PFS scenario, 10 bucks for a module and even 12 for an single AP book (as pdf in each case) will probably be manageable. Assuming four players, this is 1/3.x/4 bucks each.
The printout version might just be ok legally, but it probably is some gray area.
What about giving someone a copy of a free PDF? Like a AP players guide? Is that against the terms of service?
Answer by Vic posted right here.
Yes, at present, there is no way to transfer your PDFs to someone else, legally. Don't 'lend' them, the consequences could be exceptionally bad.
This is arguably not entirely accurate. There's already precedent set for legally transferring ownership of MP3s purchased by one party to another party, and there's a lot of legal debate over right of first sale extended to digital items.
Another suggestion is to print out your personal copy of RotRL and give him that. Then delete your PDFs.
You're legally allowed to loan a book you buy. Paizo "allows" you to print one copy of a PDF, with the disclaimer that it's "for personal use".
I'd ask, does copyright even allow Paizo to say "no, you CAN'T print a copy for personal use" or does it allow Paizo to say "you can't loan that printed copy out like you could if you had bought the real book" ??
I'm actually quite curious about that one - what part of copyright would give Paizo the ability to put those kinds of constraints on the item?
What part of copyright law says that Paizo can restrict someone lending their digital files?
The referenced Euro courts decision is quite intriguing, specifically this bit:
The court requires that the previous owner must no longer be able to use the licensed software after the resale, but finds that the practical difficulties in enforcing this clause should not be an obstacle to authorizing resale, as they are also present for software which can be installed from physical supports, where the first sale doctrine is in force.
Emphasis mine. *THIS* is rational interpretation of copyright.
The Wikipedia article does go on to note that this decision only applies to the EU, but that doesn't mean that a similar decision can't be made here.
|
|
I'm actually quite curious about that one - what part of copyright would give Paizo the ability to put those kinds of constraints on the item?
Well, going on the plethora of 'free' software licenses out there, a rights-holder can cut just about any kind of license to go along with their offer of sale to you. Whether you choose to purchase and accept is up to you.
How that interacts with the different interpretations of copyright in different countries is a sewer-full of shit that I'm not inclined or qualified to snorkel in.
If there were a technological solution to loaning and transferring the rights to a digital product, that didn't come with a whole host of other platform problems, then I hope that Paizo would have adopted it. I think we have the best solution available at present, sadly.
"I just feel that it's ridiculous to restrict distribution of a free item."Why?Because taking two identical items, and classifying one as "legal" and one as "illegal" (or pick whatever word you want to replace in quotes - good/bad, right/wrong, whatever) is completely illogical and unnecessarily complicates matters.
And, before the Goalpost Shifting Union Local 1931 shows up, I want to make it clear that, per this particular situation, I'm specifically talking about a freely downloadable piece of content - be it a Player's Guide from Paizo, or a freely downloadable MP3 from some musician.
I'm NOT discussing for-pay content at the moment (though, many of the same arguments apply).
Applying variant rules to a free item based on how it was obtained does not make any sense.
Were a copyright infringement litigation ever brought against someone "illegally" distributing free PDFs, I'd have to believe that no sane court would ever hear such a case.
I'm not talking about copyright infringement, I'm talking about breach of contract.
In a world without copyright, an owner of a work could give you a copy on condition you not distribute it. If you were to go ahead anyway, it doesnt matter if there were no such thing as copyright (or if, as you suspect, a copyright suit wouldnt be upheld in court).
The fact it may well breach copyright laws to distribute it as well, is just another reason not to do it. It's not the main ethical reason.
Before we go too much further, I want to ask: Since "contracts" have been brought up a number of times, is there ANY contract or license agreement that Paizo has that anyone can cite?
I'd like to read it, and I'm not readily finding it. Did I click-through it too fast at some point?
Not that I'm worried that I've violated it, if it exists, because I'm sure that, if it's a standard boilerplate kinda thing, I'm in compliance - I just want to be on firm ground if we're going to shift the debate from copyright to contracts/license agreements.
I couldnt find one.
Fwiw, I'm not "shifting the debate", I've been talking about contracts (or terms and conditions) since page one of this thread.
I agree with you that it is ridiculous if copyright law says copying mp3s is ok but PDFs isn't. I don't think it's ridiculous for a producer of intellectual product to provide you a copy for free, under certain conditions. If you accept that gift, I think you are ethically bound to follow the terms (whether it is enforceable or not).
ah yes, I wish science would advance as far to make everyone able to have photographic memory, that would have a revolutionary effect on copyright laws I assume
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
What is the ethical difference between a person with a photographic memory retaining an unpurchased copy of a book in his biological memory and a person without a photographic memory retaining a unpurchased copy of a book in his computer's mechanical memory?
The difference consists in what our society has decided to accept as "natural advantage", and what it has decided to criminalize. I personally believe that current copyright law is still stuck in the 20th century, where the process of copying itself was the hurdle of content duplication. At the same time I believe that the some form of protection for intellectual creations should apply.
Honestly, complete abolishment of any kind of protection from unauthorized redistribution, re-editing and creation of derivative works would endanger several branches of our economy, not the least of which is the one that feeds my family - software development. Less egotistically, I would not like to see a return to shakespeare's times, where copyright was an undreamed idea - but the actors were handed incomplete, faulty or otherwise marked partial manuscripts for fear of them selling them, with a competing trope producing the play before premiere.
Limiting the rather insane length of copyright would be one idea I would support. Other possible ideas would be codifying "common rights", or expanding on the idea of "fair use", rather than ever narrowing it down.
Returning to the actual topic, though - just because you disagree with a law does not give you a mandate to ignore it. Unless it is actually impossible to do so, it should get you into gear to change that law, though.
ah yes, I wish science would advance as far to make everyone able to have photographic memory, that would have a revolutionary effect on copyright laws I assume
We already have thought police. They'd just get actual enforcement powers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Returning to the actual topic, though - just because you disagree with a law does not give you a mandate to ignore it. Unless it is actually impossible to do so, it should get you into gear to change that law, though.
While I would agree that the vast majority of copyright infringement ISN'T performed with changing the laws as a primary motivator, disobeying laws you disagree with is a pretty big tenant of civil disobedience.
I would also point out that ignoring copyright law is what led to various sources (including Apple) transitioning to sell DRM-free music.
There's a variety of ways you can attempt to get the law changed, but it's a pretty daunting task when industry bribes their political cronies to enact greater restrictions.
Copyright reform really needs a partner INSIDE the industry.
Fwiw, I'm not "shifting the debate", I've been talking about contracts (or terms and conditions) since page one of this thread.
Sorry, you're not a member of the collective bargaining group I was referring to earlier.
I was referencing that, for the last few pages, we were discussing copyright law, not contracts, and that, if we're going to more specifically discuss any contract, I'd like to be able to read that contract before proceeding too much further.
Apologies for the confusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Returning to the actual topic, though - just because you disagree with a law does not give you a mandate to ignore it. Unless it is actually impossible to do so, it should get you into gear to change that law, though.
Civil Disobediance is an established tactic for effecting societal change though. I would classify the current state of a large demographic of people ignoring the current excesses of copyright law as an example of that, as well as showing that the underlying assumptions of digital IP law are inconsistent with the 21st century.
Any overhaul of copyright has to include an unassailable way to add to the public domain. Either by giving copyright a short period with no renewal (10 years should be more than enough time) or giving some other induncement to release things to the public domain, although I can't see how content comapanies would be trusted to do so if they were not forced.