Re: Re: 'Free Culture' Advocate May Pay High Price

On 26/07/2011 12:26, Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
> Before launching into the usual rant, the first thing that occurs to me is "oh, darn, it was JSTOR." JSTOR is available to me, and to anyone with a Boston public library card, at no cost online via the Boston Public Library electronic resources. It's one of my favorite and most-frequently-used databases. And due to funding cuts they've had to cut back and I no longer have access to the one that used to be my biggest favorite, the page images of the New York Times back to 1857.
<snip>
>   the rights and wrongs of copying, and the bright line is based on whether the copy is sold for money.
>
> "Everyone" believes that it's OK to make a copy for a friend.
>
> "Everyone" believes that it's wrong to make copies for resale.
>
> This belief is so strong and widespread as to deserve the status of "common law." People make this distinction on the basis of a strongly-held intuitive sense of right and wrong. They are not expressing a technical opinion on how the courts interpret "securing for limited Times to Authors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings," they just think it must be OK to make a copy as long as you don't sell it.
>
> As a corollary, "everyone" believes that fit and finish are an indicator of intent,
>    
<snip>
> And I think it would be a Good Thing if the creative community lined up on the side of "everyone."
>    
<snip>

Daniel,

I certainly agree that Public Libraries have negotiated some amazing 
access deals for card holders; something I too am very grateful for.

But, like Brenna, I find it difficult to recognise the 'everyone'. I'd 
then also ask whether you mean 'a' copy for 'a' friend; or 'a' copy for 
'each' of my friends. There is a major difference in scope. Selling it 
is 'an' issue, but not the only one, or main one. And I would also love 
to know what you mean by 'an intuitive sense of right and wrong'.

I do not see how right and wrong can be intuitive; in the sense covered 
here my dictionary [OED] has '...3. (of conduct etc.) just, morally 
good, required by equity or duty, proper...'. See. it is that 'morally' 
that constrains. Morality is quite specific. There is a concept of 
'ethics' [OED: 1. relating to morals, treating of moral questions; 
2.science of morals], which has come colloquially to mean 'the standards 
I set myself'.

Your suggestions above look like that last; not right or wrong, but 
ethics - the art of gilding a personal decision.

Joseph


------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------
Post a message:   ebook-community [[at]] *
Unsubscribe:      ebook-community-unsubscribe [[at]] *
Switch to digest: ebook-community-digest [[at]] *
Switch to normal: ebook-community-normal [[at]] *
Put mail on hold: ebook-community-nomail [[at]] *
Administrator:    ebook-community-owner [[at]] *

(* == yahoogroups.com)
-------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ebook-community/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ebook-community/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    ebook-community-fullfeatured-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    ebook-community-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/