[Gllug] Regarding priracy (sic)

Mike Brodbelt mike at coruscant.demon.co.uk
Wed Mar 5 19:43:52 UTC 2003


On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 10:51, chris.wareham at btopenworld.com wrote:
> 
> The anti-copyright mob claim that because they can copy something, that
> those who try and stop them are "profit grabbing bastards". Nope. Think
> about music, something that I have a considerable involvement in. I pay
> for my equipment. I pay for rehearsal time. I pay for recording and I
> get nothing for distribution. Now you come along and think "I've read
> that all data should be free, I'm unable or unwilling to satisfy my own
> musical needs but I can copy someone elses music".

Actually, what the more sane people among the "anti-copyright" group
argue over is the characterisation of music and similar things as
"intellectual property", which is then used to justify artificial
scarcity economics.

CD's can be easily and cheaply copied, and thus it can be argues that
they should cost next to nothing, as, after the music has been created,
the reproduction of the information is incredibly cheap. The scarcity
lies in the time and effort put in by a talented artist. This the artist
should get paid. However, the artist should receive compensation in
proportion to the time and effort and talent (i.e. the limited resource)
expended, and not in proportion to the number of near worthless bits of
plastic sold.

The actual situation we have with music is one where the artist gets
very little, the consumer gets screwed, and the middleman who controls
the artificial scarcity of worthless bits of plastic (the label) makes a
killing. It's then not surprising that the people who have become very
rich off other people's labour will do anything to protect their
position, by seeking the continuation of an absurd property system.

>  If I have explicitly
> said "you can copy my music freely", then that's not a problem. But what
> is happening with music is that people are copying it regardless of the
> creators wishes just because they can, and then coming up with ludicrous
> justifications.

> So in short, stop slagging off copyright law.

Surely the only way laws get better is when they're commented upon by
those who live under them. The law is a creation of society, and should
serve society, not vice versa. When it is misused, it should be changed.

> If someone produces a
> piece of software and wants to sell it, then respect their decision or
> go and write your free alternative. The ability to copy the end result
> of someones hard work does not in itself justify your right to do so.
> 
> Now, can we get back to answering *technical* queries regarding Linux
> and free software and perhaps setup an alternative Chat list for the
> anarcho-student type wastes of bandwidth.

GLLUG discussions centre around Linux, but given the politics of the FSF
and the GNU project, who provided much of the software that makes
GNU/Linux systems usable, discussions of copyright law are entirely
germane, and should not come as a surprise. If you don't want to read
this type of discussion, judicious application of the delete key is
appropriate.

Mike.


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug




More information about the GLLUG mailing list