Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:



Copyright protection only applies to 'literary work' and UK nationals in
this context (just looked it up; obviously nothing better to do!).


That is not my understanding, based on having to sign various copyright
agreements, etc, over the years. Here 'literary work' means anything you
write down which isn't a copy of some previous 'work' of someone else's. It
applies throughout the UK/EU regardless of the nationality of the person.


You didn't have to sign :-). On your serious point, I defer - i just
read the 'Act, not the case law. I did find it interesting that an idea
can't be copyrighted - only the words. But I stand correcte don the
nationality thing, and the 'anything', thanks for that.

[snip]


Yes, OK - but we simply have to differ. I don't think people should
necessarily obey the law, and doing harm to others isn't necessarily
immoral.


That may or not be so. However the person who breaks the law may not be in
a position to judge if what they do is immoral or harmful - and it is not
their position to decide this for everyone else.


You're absolutely right on your first and second points. It may or may
not be so (which frankly gets us nowhere). People are forever deciding
for others - it's their position.


[Harrison disc]


Thus here the 'harm' that piracy has done is that it has caused the
music company to act in a brainless manner *and prevent me buying the
copy I'd like to listen to - thus also denying the payment to the
copyright owners.*



To say 'piracy is the cause' of substandard media is really missing the
point.


I do not agree. It is one of the elements in the chain that lead to
non-CD's and 'nagging screens' on DVD's. Actions have consequences even
when those who have acted prefer to deny it.


That's much better - 'element in a chain'. Much better than 'it has caused'.


Jim - think what would happen if everyone obeyed copyright and music
copying without permission became a thing of the past (either through
technology, a new moral order, and/or certain pain of prosecution). Who
would be in control of music dissemination? Would that be a good thing?
I think not.


Who would "be in control" would be - as now - in the hand of those who
create the work, and want to buy/have it. If musicians don't like big
companies they can set up their own, use the net, etc. Ditto, if you don't
like what is on offer, complain or refuse to buy.


Ah, OK. Musicians are in control. I simply don't agree. Have you watched
'Top of the Pops'? I would suggest that output is more the product of
industrial machinery rather than a relfection of human musical creativity.

It is the slave who makes slavery possible. This is a harsh dictum, but it
contains a vital point. There are alternatives if you don't like the
current system, but for them to work you have to pursuade enough others to
agree with you and act as you would prefer - not simply pick and choose
what laws to break when it suits you to do so. Your actions affect others
even if that does not occur to you when you take them.


You are quite liberal with your dicta. Your slavery example is in fact a
truism and serves to illustrate very little.

On your persuasion point *I think* utilitarianism can be fascism, can be
near utopia - a lot of luck, very little judgement. I don't think the
'cuurent system' is capable of 'working', by the way.

And on your related point of legal stricture it's quite simple - you can
pick and choose, and there's generally a correlation between the person,
penalty, likelihood of detection, and benefit, which determines that choice.

On actions, most people get the general idea - if they do something,
something happens. We really don't need to understand the complete
picture. Loathed as I am to use your analogy, if authors don't like it
why don't they do something about it? Write a song perhaps? Now that
would be a hit :-;

Rob