Slashdot Mirror
RIAA President Decries Fair Use
triskaidekaphile writes, "Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, has an editorial on CNet responding to the Consumer Electronics Association's support of the Digital Freedom campaign for fair use. Sherman proclaims, 'The fair use doctrine is in danger of losing its meaning and value.' Like a true spinner, he indicates that fair use is indeed important, then states 'Let's be clear. The CEA's primary concern is not consumers, but technology companies — often large, multinational corporations which, like us, strive to make a profit... But to seize the mantra of "consumer rights" to advance that business interest is simply disingenuous.' Slashdotters, trollers, and pollsters one and all, what say you? Disingenuous or dissembling?"
"Theft is theft. Period. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. Period."
Copyright infringment is theft. Period.
"The person who has "just made a copy" is guilty of copying, not stealing."
And unauthorized copying is a form of stealing. So says Justice Breyer who is far more qualified to say than you are, krell.
Wow, taken a semantics class lately?
Not all rights are inalienable. Some rights must be enumerated so we know where we stand.
Consider suffrage rights. When the United States began, you had to be 21, male, white, and a landowner to vote. The right to vote was also a gift, granted by we, the people, through our government, to people in order to enrich the public domain.
Voting is not a natural right, either, and yet no one begrudges those who have the right. And if someone denies that right, there are punishments accorded, because we feel that the right to vote outweighs the right to deny the right to vote.
And we as a society feel the same about copyrights. Your right to protect your work is more important than my right to make copies of your work without your permission.
You can't argue this from a purely detached "natural rights" argument. It makes no sense, because there are many other non-"natural" rights that you would still consider important (the right to nondiscrimination seems to be antithetical to the "natural" right of liberty, and yet here we are.)
Any discussions about copyright should be limited entirely to: how long should the copyright last, what is the appropriate punishment for infringing upon copyright, and what is explicitly allowed and disallowed under copyright laws (including fair use.) Everything else is a poor mix of hyperbole, intractability, and bombast.