[free-sklyarov] Backlash

DeBug debug at centras.lt
Fri Jul 27 01:48:20 PDT 2001


SDS> I think this argument is reasonable, and all copyright is a restriction
SDS> on freedom of speech which might not be accepted today if it were
SDS> proposed from scratch.  ("What?  You're going to let corporations _OWN
SDS> INFORMATION_?  What are you thinking?")
Yes exactly. This is because information is unmaterial and thus
unlimited resource.

SDS> Since _some kind_ of copyright is very traditional in the U.S. and
SDS> there are industries based on it, it's hard to imagine having it go
SDS> away altogether.
Industries based on copyrights are potencial risk - risk of
misserving public needs by wrong investitions. This is what
happend with dot-com. So i think people themselves should
decide and own the industries. Make production process
available to public and allow people to invest into it
directly (Namely let people decide how much are we gonna pay for this
and for this on each step of the production process)

SDS> What are the biggest harms from copyright today?  It's not that people
SDS> have to pay for books and movies!  As long as public libraries are
SDS> strong, it's not a big deal that you have to go pay $12 or $20 if you
SDS> want your own copy of something. Yes, certain prices have been
SDS> inflated, but the "having to pay for copies" isn't a terrible harm
SDS> to the public.
If it is not terrible harm to the public then ok let's make public pay
for it the full price - it can be terrible harm for individual and
if public really supports constitutional copyrights
it has either
to pay for people who does not accept these copyrights
(this is marxism and it turned out to be utopy)
or to admit that copyright is not accepted by EACH individual
and thus can not be accepted at all.
If government want to support industries based on copyrights
it should be responsible to provide products of that industry
for free to those individuals who does not accept copyrights
(yes this is marxism ) If it is not acceptable then government
should honestly say this kind of copyright cannot be supported
(and i think this is the way of god)

SDS> The real harms are the erosion of protections for the public's side of
SDS> the copyright bargain -- the attacks on the fair use and first sale
SDS> doctrines, for example.  The real harms are when copyright keeps works
SDS> out of print, even when somebody wants to buy them
And what if someone says i can make it cheaper - i just
buy original CD and go burn CDs. This is much cheaper.
I do agree that the right way would be to convince
copyright holder to do it but if he refuses let others do it.


SDS> Of course,
SDS> traditional copyright law doesn't say that; it says that copyright
SDS> holders have certain specific enumerated exclusive rights, for a
SDS> limited time, and then that's the end of it.
But if there are individuals who think limited period of time is
too long you must either shorten it or pay those individuals so they agree

SDS> but much debate about copyright proceeds along "how can
SDS> we best protect owners?" lines.
It is so simple -  give control of the production lines to the public.

SDS>  It's being forgotten that traditional
SDS> copyright in the U.S. was conceived as a (to use my term) public
SDS> subsidy to promote creative work;
That's great that is exactly what i mean. So let each individual
decide how he is going to subsidy.

>> AD> Like people who burn and sell hundreds of CDs (without consent of artists
>> AD> and copyright holders) for personal profit.
>> So what ? They help the public to satisfy its needs for cheaper price.
>> What is wrong with that ?

SDS> I suggested in a letter that copyright infringement is somewhat like
SDS> tax evasion:
Yes i do agree. But the question is how tax should be collected.
I think the right way is to collect ALL UNUSED money from all
people and use this money to support copyrights.
This will not lead to all people being equal because
their needs are different.
Also this leaves the right to decide for each individual.

SDS> I do think (after Stallman) that infringing copyrights is different
SDS> from "stealing", because it doesn't take anything away from the
SDS> copyright holder.  But it does say "I don't respect this policy of
SDS> compensating people for creative work".
Yes i say that because i found more effective way to do that work
Should the public still continue to subsidy less effective way of
production ?

SDS> Perhaps if copyright
SDS> law were again more "reasonable", more people would feel guilty about
SDS> violating it.
I always feel guilty when i violate copyright because noone allowed
me to take this decision TOGETHER with copyright-holder. I just
want to go to copyright-holder and say - look there is no need
to prevent people copying CDs, let's do it ourselves, how much
will it cost me ? It i do not get "You've got the deal" i just
go to compete (by illegal use) and to prove i was right

SDS> So my point for the Free Sklyarov movement is that -- because most
SDS> people are not against copyrights, and many respected copyright
SDS> supporters, like Brad Templeton, have been doing crucial work here --
SDS> it's not _necessary_ to oppose copyright to see why Sklyarov should be
SDS> free.  And most people in the movement probably support copyright.
I do agree. I just wanted to make people understand.
I do not think the general public is going to understand.
I do not think that deaf can hear so speak to them what they can hear


-- 
Best regards,
 DeBug                            mailto:debug at centras.lt






More information about the Free-sklyarov mailing list