Ideas, philosophy, politics, current events and happenings, music, literature, art and simple incidents out of my everyday life; Reflections and observations which, I hope, might just get you thinking ...
I’m on the side of musicians & others and don’t give a damn how much anti-piracy laws are frightening to Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia most days (and sometimes correct their typos etc), but any attempts they make to claim the moral high ground are not successful with me.
Well, Vincent, I am on the side of musicians / artists, too.Still, I do not agree with you.Actually, I am kind of glad that there seems to be at least one topic on this planet you've not have had the time, yet, to thoroughly inform yourself about.The peace of the night.
While paying lip service to artists, writers, and musicians these bills (SOPA and PIPA) have been written by 'patent holders' of the corporate persuasion. People need to be diligent in protecting online freedom. The internet is one of man's greatest achievements since the written word itself. If we allow authorities to restrict the flow of communication, we restrict the exchange of ideas and, in turn, hinder the progress of society as a whole. While it is important to protect intellectual property rights, we ought to remember that copyrights exist to ensure that an individual from those who would profit from their work without providing due compensation or without permission, not to ensure the profitability of a medium. The exchange of thought and idea is the cornerstone of man's advancement throughout all history. It must be protected.
Well, Sean, thanks for this. Ignorance has never stopped me arguing against ideas, especially the most fashionable ones. But now I’ve met you, and may never have the time to thoroughly check your fascinating contributions to cyberspace. But at first sight, they appear to be well worth the detour from what I meant to do in this portion of the peace of the night (4 am)!
:)Ah, Vincent. You will, of course, have detected the compliment, won't you?In case you did not, here it is again, in other words: Almost whenever dropping by and reading one or more posts of you [or is it yours?] I am getting impressed by your well grounded arguments (not that always I'd agree) and your (writing-) style.The more surprised I was when reading your comment.I am glad you counted my 'attack' with the foil and not with the sabre. I am glad Susan put pretty well what I would have written had I not been to lazy. :)
Indeed I did, thank you Sean.We can perhaps discuss further the matter at hand. Susan refers to “ ‘patent holders’ of the corporate persuasion”. She also opines that copyrights exist to protect individuals. Not just them!Such a view seems to harbour an implicit bias against corporations, and indeed against authorities. We all benefit daily from the existence of authorities, who can bark and not just bite. None of us would like to live in Somalia, I suspect. Anyone who has attempted to make a movie of the highest artistic quality, whose box-office success is far from guaranteed, will know that it depends on the work of hundreds of dedicated individuals, none of whom is keen on going bankrupt. They have to seek far and wide to find ‘angels’, as they are known in the trade, to provide funds, without being able to promise them much in return. This kind of investment is not to be compared with speculating on the Stock Exchange. It is the necessary infrastructure for the creation of certain types of art. On the other hand, there are those who have contempt for copyright. They may be individuals versus corporations. That does not make them heroes. They may believe in share and share alike. But that doesn’t make theft blameless.What do you think, by the way, about the treatment of Kim Dotcom, and his company Megaupload?
Sorry I meant of course to say bite and not just bark!
Your comments are, of course, welcome. I've had to reinstall captchas recently as - like most other bloggers - I was being plagued by spambots.