Re: why-piracy-is-never-okay/

On 2/17/2013 6:18 PM, josephHarris wrote:

> On 17/02/2013 18:52, Lee Passey wrote:
>>
>> On 2/16/2013 11:30 AM, josephHarris wrote:
>>
>>> Excellent list of excuses and responses. From another list where posted
>>> by Marilynn Byerly.
>>>
>>> http://amazingstoriesmag.com/2013/02/why-piracy-is-never-okay/
>>
>> An insipid list comprised almost exclusively of tautologies and
>> non-sequiturs. If you are a member of the choir, you will no doubt find
>> the sermon inspiring; if you have any doubts at all about the purpose or
>> efficacy of copyright law you will find the list totally unpersuasive.
>> It does not address the fundamental assumptions on either side of the
>> debate, and thus does nothing to move that debate forward.
>>
>> If you have some time to kill go ahead and look at the list, but if
>> you're not already a partisan I'm betting that your response will be,
>> like mine, "yeah, whatever."
>>
>
> Many thanks for the predictable reply Lee :-) .
>
> I would have been more convinced that your own words did not equally
> match your description had you specified something.

There was nothing to specify. Every point made could be boiled down to:

Pirate: copyright is stupid, so we shouldn't feel bound by it.
Author: copyright is the law, and you must obey the law.

You see, a non-sequitur--as it does not respond to either the contention 
that copyright is stupid, or that civil disobedience is the proper 
response--and a tautology: copyright should be the law because copyright 
/is/ the law.

If anything, the article is pro-piracy as it reiterates many of the 
arguments of why "copyright is stupid" without actually addressing any 
of them.

I suspect there are arguments that can be made as to why copyright is 
desirable. I'm not convinced any of them are evidence-based, but the 
arguments can still be made. An even more interesting argument would be 
whether civil disobedience is a good response to stupid copyright laws 
(the doctrine of necessity). Personally, I don't think it is, but Ms. 
Byerly didn't even address the issue.

> I would just make one point in response to what I have understood you
> basic objection to be.

My basic objection is that if Ms. Byerly is going to defend copyright, 
she's needs to actually defend copyright. This kind of list is not a 
dialog it is a diatribe; it's certainly not going to persuade anyone who 
questions the efficacy of current copyright laws, or even make them 
pause for thought. It's cheerleading for the copyright rich, nothing more.

> Otherwise it is back to patronage and printer/publisher power - or even
> to state control through paying approved creatives to write.

Which I think would be, in many ways, superior to what we have now--but 
that would require a rational discussion, not a reactionary one.



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

------------------------------------------------------
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/