Re: BBC tell whoppers on downloads

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:13:23 +0100, JPB
<news{@}europa{.}demon{.}co{.}uk> wrote:

Alex Heney wrote:

<snip>



You have to remember, the "usually claimed" is by those who think
about the matter, while those who claim otherwise are always trying to
justify the theft.


Rubbish. People like me, for example, do not find it necessary to copy
proprietary licensed software, because we can use superior Free software.
And you can rest assured I do think about the matter, just not in a way you
approve of.

Before copyleft, if you needed software, for any number of understandable
reasons, and couldn't afford the extortionate prices, then there was little
choice - and there *wasn't* always a choice except to copy and be damned.

Same with other content, and I now pretty much no longer buy CD music
because of extortionate prices and DRM, and I expect my expenditure to drop
further as the publisher desperately try to hold on to their cash cow with
their digital restrictions nonsense.


Which is fine.

But you can also expect your ownership of professional level music to
not increase.




A better way is to use copyleft, to create and consume Free material,
which we can share legally with BitTorrent or any other means. Every time
we create more Free content, we make the present copyright system a little
bit more irrelevant, using wholly legal direct popular action.

Plus, with Free content it's not necessary to accept invasive digital
restrictions software that owns your computer and your players, which come
with attempts to apply contract law and technical restrictions to enforce
non-negotiated EULA's and impose conditions far and above anything
copyright law ever did.

Plus, of course, with Free content, it is not necessary (or even
usually possible) to *pay* the people who produce the material
anything for their time and trouble.

Rubbish. Of course it is. Volunteers can produce it without pay if they wish
(after all, it is Free by definition),

Of course.

and also it can be commissioned for
pay (again it is Free so of course that's possible), and that regularly
happens as well.


Rubbish.

It may *occasionally* happen that some philanthropist is willing to
pay for something that they will then make available for free.

But it is not a *regular* occurrence.



If all you want is amateur material, produced in "spare time" then
fine.

Otherwise, copyright is NECESSARY.

Rubbish. Free content is quite capable of being *better* than non-free
content,

Of course.

But it will rarely be so.


The same thing applies to other content - it is just that people are used to
having grown up in a world with copyright, to which is added the constant
drumbeat of propaganda from the marketing departments of publishing
organisations, who aren't short of budget.

Great content will still be created, often for pay, with or without
copyright - or do you believe that Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Beethoven,
Mozart, Shakespeare, etc would not have produced their works without
today's copyright protection? Hell, they might not have been *able* to,
(e.g. Shakespeare), not without first paying to "clear rights" on previous
works from which they gained inspiration.

Copyright protection only really became necessary when copying became
reasonably cheap and easy.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Let's split up, we can do more damage that way.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Patents, Royalties and other Scams...???
    ... That is really a matter of how people choose to use it. ... > or implicitly, and no harm comes ... pirate copy for nothing?" ... There may also be 'harm' to people who pay for a ...
    (uk.rec.audio)
  • Re: Phil S. is an old fart
    ... if i could pay for cubase, i would, but since i can't ... offer free trial downloads (don't know about cubase) to address this issue. ... This is a matter of character judgment. ... I steal my neighbours car, or a car off the lot for that ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: Big Dig Disaster Website
    ... Doesn't matter whether you love them or hate them, ... should pay. ... I hope we are like western Europe in 10 years. ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Re: Patents, Royalties and other Scams...???
    ... The author may assign/rent/sell/permit/etc various copyrights, but that is a matter for them. ... If they have sold or rented rights, then the body or person who obtained the rights would have the relevant control. ... the intent of the perpetrator - if someone is using something that isn't theirs, and attributes that use explicitly or implicitly, and no harm comes from it I see no moral problem. ... There may also be 'harm' to people who pay for a ...
    (uk.rec.audio)
  • Re: Disruption to Royal Mail postal services - 12th and 13th July 2007
    ... Regardless of what IQ you need, not many jobs do need high IQ, and the pay for posties and the working conditions have gone down and down, meantime the cost to us the customer has gone up and the service levels have gone down. ... My principle in life is pay someone a decent wage they want to work hard for you, instead the royal mail pay rubbish they attract rubbish workers who dont really care about their jobs. ... And fwiw, they were offered a measly 2.5% pay increase and the prospect of over 35000 job losses, the service is rubbish as it is imagine after all the job losses? ...
    (uk.adverts.computer)