All correct, of course. (Except for the bit about drivers that break the law being a minority...that's debatable, but I'll let it go.) But the point I was trying to make is that "Everybody is breaking law X anyways" does not in itself mean that law X is wrong and/or should be repealed.
And the comparison to speed limits isn't entirely inappropriate; it has been made before by others. I remember reading something recently in which the author was noting that the younger generations have gotten accustomed to bending copyright rules. He/she was musing that perhaps it's now simply too late to ever corral them back to a more restrictive environment, much like previous generations and, yup, speed limits.
I wholeheartedly agree with the general thrust of your argument, i.e. that current copyright law is broken or, at the very least, being somewhat overextended. Its current [ab]use by the RIAA resembles a shakedown, pure and simple.
However, on the specific points of libraries and speed limits, I'm sorry, you haven't convinced me.
I said that libraries encourage free public access to works, not the wholesale copying and distribution of them, and I still hold this to be the case. Libraries loan you things; they don't give you a copy that is yours to keep. You are free to copy/use/distribute the ideas contained within the work, and to this end they allow limited copying of portions of the work itself, but not the entire work. In my mind, this does not add up to "encouraging the spread of copyrighted publications".
As for speed limits, I'm sure you're correct about them being raised. But people everywhere still exceed them today, so that doesn't really address my question: Are speeding laws "wrong" (a very B&W view, but anyways) or the work of a "narrow special interests" as well, simply because many people disobey them?
In fact the creation of public libraries was specifically for the purpose of encouraging the spread of copyrighted publications (books, magazines, recordings and eventually video recordings) at no charge except for late fees.
I think I disagree with you here. Public libraries were created for the purpose of encouraging free ACCESS to copyrighted works, not to encourage wholesale copying and distribution of them.
When you have a new law (forbidding non-commercial copying being less than 10 years old) being flouted by tens of millions of people, I think there is a real issue of our legislators being bought by very narrow special interests.
What about speed limits? HUNDREDS of millions of people flout them, but are they the work of very narrow special interests?
I hate the RIAA's tactics in this as much as anybody else, but I have to respectfully disagree with you on those two points.
I just had a rather perverse thought...
In a sense, one could argue that realistically violent games like GTA are actually more responsible than the average video game, because they show realistic consequences of violent acts. So many other games have badguys disappearing in a poof of smoke or whatever, which could give impressionable individuals an unrealistic view of the consequences of their actions.
Of course, this is just a rehash of the common criticism against pro wrestling.
It's tenuous at best, and I don't really believe it myself, but thought it was interesting nonetheless.
Slashdot Mirror
I really can't believe we here at /. missed this in April!?
From April 28th.
According to this Tournament of Champions contestant, the lockout time is actually somewhere around 1/5 of a second.
All correct, of course. (Except for the bit about drivers that break the law being a minority...that's debatable, but I'll let it go.) But the point I was trying to make is that "Everybody is breaking law X anyways" does not in itself mean that law X is wrong and/or should be repealed.
And the comparison to speed limits isn't entirely inappropriate; it has been made before by others. I remember reading something recently in which the author was noting that the younger generations have gotten accustomed to bending copyright rules. He/she was musing that perhaps it's now simply too late to ever corral them back to a more restrictive environment, much like previous generations and, yup, speed limits.
I just wish I could remember where I read that...
I wholeheartedly agree with the general thrust of your argument, i.e. that current copyright law is broken or, at the very least, being somewhat overextended. Its current [ab]use by the RIAA resembles a shakedown, pure and simple.
However, on the specific points of libraries and speed limits, I'm sorry, you haven't convinced me.
I said that libraries encourage free public access to works, not the wholesale copying and distribution of them, and I still hold this to be the case. Libraries loan you things; they don't give you a copy that is yours to keep. You are free to copy/use/distribute the ideas contained within the work, and to this end they allow limited copying of portions of the work itself, but not the entire work. In my mind, this does not add up to "encouraging the spread of copyrighted publications".
As for speed limits, I'm sure you're correct about them being raised. But people everywhere still exceed them today, so that doesn't really address my question: Are speeding laws "wrong" (a very B&W view, but anyways) or the work of a "narrow special interests" as well, simply because many people disobey them?
In fact the creation of public libraries was specifically for the purpose of encouraging the spread of copyrighted publications (books, magazines, recordings and eventually video recordings) at no charge except for late fees.
I think I disagree with you here. Public libraries were created for the purpose of encouraging free ACCESS to copyrighted works, not to encourage wholesale copying and distribution of them.
When you have a new law (forbidding non-commercial copying being less than 10 years old) being flouted by tens of millions of people, I think there is a real issue of our legislators being bought by very narrow special interests.
What about speed limits? HUNDREDS of millions of people flout them, but are they the work of very narrow special interests?
I hate the RIAA's tactics in this as much as anybody else, but I have to respectfully disagree with you on those two points.
I just had a rather perverse thought... In a sense, one could argue that realistically violent games like GTA are actually more responsible than the average video game, because they show realistic consequences of violent acts. So many other games have badguys disappearing in a poof of smoke or whatever, which could give impressionable individuals an unrealistic view of the consequences of their actions. Of course, this is just a rehash of the common criticism against pro wrestling. It's tenuous at best, and I don't really believe it myself, but thought it was interesting nonetheless.