16 Aug
2006
16 Aug
'06
4:52 p.m.
On Wed August 16 2006 14:30, Lee Revell wrote:
Well, I happen to think the law is correct and logical
in this
case. My creations are my property, and I should have the
same right to make a living by selling them as a sculptor or a
baker or a carpenter does. Copying my creations without my
permission denies me the right to make a living by selling my
creations, in exactly the same way that theft deprives a maker
of physical objects of that right.
It's true that copyright holders managed to get the laws changed
in most places to fit what they would like reality to be, but
reality remains unchanged. Copying is still just copying, not
moving.
Most people grasp that intuitively, which is why there's always
such a huge divide between the legal and ethical arguments on
this topic. Then there's credit vs. remuneration and whether one
should be entitled to make a living at whatever livelihood one
chooses and a whole slew of other issues that can be used to
confuse the issue, and usually are.
But when someone uses the "you'd copy a song but would you steal
a car?" argument to invoke an emotional response, I'll always
correct him. We all have our pet peeves and that's one of mine.
Rob