View Single Post
Old 21st July 2012 | Show parent
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
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.
The difference is your strong view that no one should subvert copyright to suit their own agenda. My reality is I accept people will infringe on copyright ('subvert' the law), just like they fiddle the odd tax receipt, and drive over the speed limit. I'm just pointing out it becomes damaging when the scale of 'subversion' gets out of control, threatens to become the new norm.
I'm trying to persuade consumers that a short term gain (free and ubiquitous entertainment) is a negative for them in the longer run. At the same time I will criticise business leaders in entertainment for price gouging and region locking for profit alone. I am also happy to negotiate on changes to copyright to reflect new technology. I wont go as far as to make all content free and ubiquitous, for the reasons I just stated.
I see you as more hardcore because you post things like "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" and seem to believe that's what musicians are trying to do.... 'subvert' the 'public consensus'.
No, musicians are speaking up in support of hard won rights in the workplace. 'Reasonable' is embodied by musicians debating in places like this, and going ahead and giving away free music to some degree. 'Unreasonable' is downloading for free all the entertainment you want, just because it's possible, and by persuading oneself you are a freedom fighter, struggling against some Orwellian dictatorship.