[pp.int.general] purpose of manifesto
r.bakels at planet.nl
Mon Jan 26 21:36:53 CET 2009
> meme that "copyright infringement is theft". That's the real fallacy that
> needs to be met. The average internet user isn't thinking about
> "intellectual property" versus "immaterial rights", he is thinking about
> "sharing" versus "theft". And it is in the "sharing copies" versus
> "stealing works" divide that I think is the most useful to drive a wedge
I could not agree more! But politics is emotion, not logic, and then they
say "yes, but it feels like theft". Then you perhaps better resort to
completely different arguments, like: those who benefit are actually the big
record companies, currently WW concentrated in just a handful of
conglomerates, with an excellent risk spread, who consistently claim to
represent the interests of artists with crocodile tears in their eyes, while
actually stealing FROM THEM!
Thats is why the Max Planck institute in its position statement against the
"50->95 extension" explains that it is likely to hurt rather than benefit
the position of artists, by distracting the attention from the need of
better copyright contract law. Artists are often forced at the start of
their career to agree on very unfavourable contracts with record companies
because they do not (yet) have a good negotiation position.
Don't the persistent efforts of interested parties to extend copyright ever
more actually STEAL from the publlic domain, hence from the general public?
Uh, who are the criminals here, anyway???
More information about the pp.international.general