Slashdot Mirror
Grubb for Congress. By Weblog.
An anonymous reader writes: "Wired is running a story about a (Libertarian) candidate for Congress in North Carolina whose platform explicitly supports P2P file-sharing activity. She's running against one of the big supporters of the Berman P2P hacking bill." The weblog community is all excited over her because she drank the Kool-aid.
The idea is not to do away with all legislation,
you're thinking of anarchy. Libertarianism seeks
to reduce legislation to the origional consitutional
roles or protecting the population from force and
fraud. The gub'ment does a piss poor job of most
of the stuff it's involved in. What's needed to
prevent exploitation and toxic dumps is to make sure
that the true cost is stuck to the entity making the
purchase. If you polute, you must pay to clean it up
and pass those costs on to your customers. Then
you'll have an incentive not to polute, or at least
come up with a cheap efficient way to clean it up.
I am a Libertarian
I don't believe in music piracy
I do believe in P2P.
I disagree with how the RIAA/MPAA is trying to solve their problem.
If you don't agree w/ me, reply. I agree w/ the idea of copyprotected music. It is a produced object. Something that has time and money invested to produce an item that really does have actual value. If I produced a song that I specifically did not want to give away for free, I would try to keep it off P2P networks. I would contact those who are sharing these files and explain that they don't have permission from me to distribute this.
Now, let me step back and say. I do understand fair use. If you purchase my CD and rip it to MP3 that's fine. You purchased the CD, you purchase the rights to listen to the music but, you did not purchase the rights to re-distribute my works in a way I don't see fit.
OK.. Now step forward again. Why don't I like the way the MPAA/RIAA is protecting their property. There are/have been laws on the books that protect the copyright holders rights to published works. These laws explicity spelled out the fair uses of these works as well as protecting the creators. These laws worked for years on end. The change in technology didn't change the laws. The change in technology didn't make these laws less effective. You could easily still bring suit against a P2P user for sharing your music under the current legal system, it's just harder to do. So instead of attempting to protect their rights the hard way they simply bought laws to help them. These laws(DMCA, etc.) are what I have a problem with.
I abhor the creation of laws that violate my rights in any way shape or form. It is not the purpose of government to pick and choose winners by passing favorable laws it is the purpose of government to protect my rights.