talkmagic.co.uk

Alfred Borden wrote:Why does near enough every post you make have to include a snide remark to another member?

I could probably dispute that, Dean, but the truth is I am an angry man. There are huge problems in the world, and most of us are content to go with the flow and not rock the boat.
BigShot is unwilling to legislate against copyright infringment, and blames outmoded business practices - such as writing books or producing records. That is not the problem. The problem is the basic dishonesty and lack of ethics in the business community. Google is not just "only one company" as BigShot so dismissively puts it. It is a global corporation worth more than my entire country. It thought it was big enough to get away with stealing the entire contents of every book ever published and making them available free on the internet. In one step they would have destroyed the income of every living author worldwide. I am not just angry, I am furious. If we can't trust big business to do the right thing - and we all know we can't - then at least we can have legislation to force some ethics on them.

TonyB wrote:

Alfred Borden wrote:Why does near enough every post you make have to include a snide remark to another member?

I could probably dispute that, Dean, but the truth is I am an angry man. There are huge problems in the world, and most of us are content to go with the flow and not rock the boat.
BigShot is unwilling to legislate against copyright infringment, and blames outmoded business practices - such as writing books or producing records. That is not the problem. The problem is the basic dishonesty and lack of ethics in the business community. Google is not just "only one company" as BigShot so dismissively puts it. It is a global corporation worth more than my entire country. It thought it was big enough to get away with stealing the entire contents of every book ever published and making them available free on the internet. In one step they would have destroyed the income of every living author worldwide. I am not just angry, I am furious. If we can't trust big business to do the right thing - and we all know we can't - then at least we can have legislation to force some ethics on them.

Like I said Tony, you have an opinion on most things, whether wrong or right, thats always a good thing. I actually agree with you on the above points, and you articulate so much better in the last post! What Google did to you was out of line, I'm sure we all agree that, I don't think thats what BigShot meant either...
I am angry about a lot of things as well, maybe on a smaller scale to you, but dog fouling, litter bugs, people parking in disabled/parent and child spots that shouldn't (nearly got into a fight over that this morning ), inconsiderate drivers, drink-driving, how long have you got? Sure you get the gist

My point was, sometimes the snide remarks you make mean the weight and value of your opinions are diluted somewhat

You can see that right?

Tony - am I being unclear in my comments or are you deliberately ignoring my point and making up whatever argument makes you feel slighted the most?

I'll step out of this discussion entirely if you'll do just one thing. Without taking words out of context, quote me saying that I am not willing to legislate against copyright infringement.
I am NOT against such legislation per se - I am against such legislation when it amounts to giving the entertainment industry licence to shut down just about any site it likes with no judicial oversight. I don't know how many different ways I can make the same point and still have you fail to pick up on or acknowledge it. If you won't take it this time, I'm afraid we're at an impasse.

It matters not how unethical a single company like Google is (and no matter how upset you were then it infringed your copyright, it IS one company - powerful as it may be) that is no excuse to punish wholesale any individual website where some potential for abuse exists regardless of whether or not such abuse has taken place.

To use a really clumsy but clear analogy - some people break the speed limit, should we then allow anti-speed campaigners to confiscate every single car that they suspect isn't fitted with a prohibitively expensive GPS device which forces the car to stick to the speedlimit and to do so without any judicial oversight, due process and placing the burden of proof on the accused rather than the accuser?

"I'm not just angry, I am furious."
Clearly your fury has distorted your view of reality. Google has not destroyed the income of every living author worldwide. Authors are still writing and they are still earning. Google's actions were so far out-of-line it's hard to describe, but that does NOT give the entertainment industry the right to extra-judicial policing of the internet with powers to shut down whole websites when no crime has been committed.

We already have legislation to force ethics on those who infringe copyright. The issue with this proposed legislation is a reversal of burden of proof, removal of protection for those who make a serious effort to remove copyright infringing material and the handing of legal powers of coercion to private organisations (like the RIAA for example) who are unelected, uncontrolled by anything other than their own interests and who have no judicial oversight.

I've said that same thing time and time again, I'm not really expecting you to pick up on it or change your tune on this, but I will not just sit here while you attack straw man versions of me or my arguments.

Here's a bullet point summary of my argument so far, please consider them while formulating any further responses you make.
* I am not opposed to reasonable, properly defined and managed legislation protecting intellectual property.
* I produce IP subject to copyright on a more regular basis than most writers.
* When I say "flawed business model" that has nothing to do with "writing" but with the framework under which that work is paid for.
* Existing legislation, if enforced, is ample to provide the protections needed for creators of copyright material.
* I object as a matter of principe to legislation which would hand policing copyright to private organisations without judicial oversight.
* I object as a matter of principle to legislation which is a de facto restriction on free speech.
* I object as a matter of principle to legislation which would permit the closing of websites where no copyright infringement has taken place.
* I object, as a matter of principle to legislation which would shift the burden of proof from accuser to accused as it goes against everything a free society should be based upon... liberty.

BigShot, I follow your argument and in an ideal world I would probably agree with you. And my apologies for seeming to pick you out for harsh criticism. It was your reaction to Google that triggered me off.
However we do not live in an ideal world. The only reason Google did not destroy the income of every living author was because they were stopped. It was not because they got an attack of ethics. That will never happen. Some corporations - Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple among others - have got so big and so powerful they are bigger and more powerful than several countries. And it is in human nature to be greedy and corrupt. Now that most music is distributed electronically extraordinary measures will need to be in place to protect musicians. Books are going the same way, and movies can similarly be pirated. I don't like legislation, but we can't trust big business to tow the line. Putting restrictive legislation in place - even bad legislation - is better than ignoring the problem, which is what commonly happens.

I will end on an analogy that illustrates my point. In Ireland last year we all took a 10% pay cut (for many it was more). The only sector not included in the austerity measures were the judges, who are protected from pay cuts by the constitution. They were asked to take a voluntary pay cut in line with the rest of the country. There were calls for legislation to force their hands, but they assured us they could be trusted to do the right thing. In the end they did not take any pay cut (with a few honourable exceptions) so we changed the constitution and forced them. It is human nature to do the expedient thing rather than the right thing, which is why bad and objectionable legislation is often better than no legislation.

I am all for free speech. I believe in it passionately. But I do not believe that freedom extends to the distribution of other people's thoughts and creations without their permission. Which is what the internet seems to be all about.

And Dean, I know that my views are often expressed in biting words. Face to face you would see the twinkle in my eye as I utter them. That is lost on the internet, a thing I often forget. Tony