[LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?

[Al Thompson]

On 02/13/2013 03:21 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
>
>     I'm not sure I buy this argument. 
>
>     Allow me to play devil's advocate, as I'm not sure I fully agree
>     with the position I'm about to present.
>
>     If I never see your writing, there is no way for me to copy it. In
>     order to copy it I must first see it. If you were to make your
>     writing available only under a conditional contract of sale
>     (copyright) that states the writing is not to be shared with
>     anyone else, and that contract of sale is made known prior to any
>     exchange of said writing, then the only people that ever see this
>     writing and will be "forcefully" bound to the contractual
>     agreement are those that agree with it. No one is forced to not
>     copy it if they don't buy it, and by buying they enter into a
>     contract of sale. In other words, copyright does not try to remove
>     things from the public domain, it tries to prevent them from
>     entering into the public domain in the first place by restricting
>     the sharing of those things to a community of people who respect
>     the conditions of it being shared. 
>
>     The only cases where I feel like your argument could hold is when
>     I am forced to read or listen to your work due to public
>     broadcasting. However, except for perhaps some severe fascist
>     states, it rarely happens that people are forcefully exposed to
>     media in the first place that they are then denied the right to
>     copy it against their will.
>
>
>
> Your thinking is in the right direction. Indeed, if you are given a
> book under contract, then you have to abide by the contract. But let's
> say you decided to break the agreement and copied the book on the
> Internet or gave it to your friends. All those people made no contract
> with the author and thus they cannot be and should not be bound by the
> contract. What copyright does is bind third parties, which never
> agreed to the contract.
>
> There are other cases. Public broadcasting is one. You turn on your TV
> and see Harry Potter. You were not presented with any contract. Why
> should you be bound by any conditions? If the author of Harry Potter
> wanted to distribute her book only under contract obligations, she
> should not have let it broadcast on TV.
> The other case is the one I mentioned - someone breaking a contract.
> There are other options, like accidents. You leave a book on a bench.
> Unless the book itself contains a full blown contract in it, there is
> no way for Joe who finds the book to know. In fact, even if the
> contract is in the book, Joe did not sign it.
>
> Additionally, some things are just out there. You invent something.
> The other person sees it. He has no contract with you. Why should he
> restrict actions with his own body and his own property? What
> legitimate reason is there to not act on a new knowledge you have?
>
> Finally, if each time you enter a store and decide to buy a DVD, you
> were explicitly told that you will not simply be able to share copies,
> but that you should agree to not use the knowledge you gain from the
> DVD and act as if you have no such knowledge, I am not sure most
> people would agree.

That's why things have copyright notices on them that are very specific
in their form and location.



-- 
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:

  http://www.lateralforce.com
 
 
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
   http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
 
 
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer.  Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
                                                - [Friedrich Nietzsche]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/attachments/20130213/1d89e945/attachment.html>