View Single Post
Old 20th July 2012 | Show parent
Gear Addict

Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
More hardcore than my view:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
An individual who disagrees with the public consensus on the treatment of these works, as embodied in the form of ********ic law, is not entitled to therefore subvert it...
What we have is millions of individuals who (supposedly) disagree with the law and who are subverting it.
The ********ic consensus is to uphold current copyright law. I'm not a copyright evangelist and wouldn't have written what you wrote, but I do strongly think if people aren't happy with the way entertainment is delivered, or it's price, they should act to change copyright ********ically, not 'subvert' the law based on their own situation (often financial).
Isn't the position that you describe entirely in line with my own remarks? As in change the law, don't break the law? When I say subvert in the quote above, it is the breaking of the law that I speak toward -- I can only make sense of a difference between the position I express and the one that you do if subvert is somehow taken in a different context.

Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
So it's sort of ironic that you feel strongly that 'individuals should not subvert' copyright laws, and yet we are almost always on opposite sides of this debate.
I don't necessarily see an irony here -- we can agree on this principle but still reasonably disagree on implications (such as the details and plausibilities of enforcement) that result from it. The subject is anything but simple, and contrary to the story presented by shallow ideologues, copyright is not simply a matter of "artist's rights;" it is a complex economic theory that can be rationally judged and debated on that basis. I, obviously, support the theory of copyright, but that doesn't mean I think that the balance (as described here) between public access and publishing incentivization is presently weighted appropriately. But it is perfectly reasonable to debate and to disagree on these matters without reducing the conversation to a caricature of either loving or hating artists and creators (note that I am not accusing you, chrisso, of engaging in this rhetoric), and thus it's not an irony that we can agree on certain facets and disagree on others.