If you go to the iTunes store in your iTunes app and search for:
festival fry
... you'll find a podcast ("Series 2 Episode 4, iTunes Live Festival") with a nice speech by Stephen Fry. He does a lightning run through the history of printing and recording and copyright, and then explains why he thinks that best way for us is not to either abolish copyright altogether, nor to keep hold of copyright with an iron fist in a steel glove, but to keep it but hold it lightly. Just what I've been saying for eleven years.
10 comments:
So how would it work, keeping it but holding it lightly? Also, it seems copyright means little these days to most people in the age of massive illegal downloading. Millions upon millions do it, and busting a few people here and there has no effect. No more than the few busts they make now and then has had any effect in the "War on Drugs."
By "holding it lightly", I mean for example not suing 13-year olds for using bittorrent.
Or a step further, like Apple now, selling files you can copy to other devices.
By "holding it lightly", I mean for example not suing 13-year olds for using bittorrent.
So, when a pirating group wants to publish the whole back catalog from the big four record companies without legal repercussions, all it needs to do is make sure the person operating the bittorrent server is exactly 13-years old?
What do you know, ttl? Get back to throwing around your own feces! ;-)
"an iron fist in a steel glove [...] Just what I've been saying for eleven years."
Well, *I* have been saying that same expression, which I coined myself, for at least sixteen years.
But since you didn't know me yet back then, I'll admit your honesty of intent and won't sic my lawyers at you.
Because that's just the sort of swell, generous, and above all modest guy I am!
Still, from now on, I expect you to insert a 500 word-text of copyright notice acknowledging my precedence and authorship, before each time you use that expression.
What do you know, ttl?
I know, for example, that Fry's (and Eolake's and Pascal's) concept of copyright is plain silly.
If copyright (as it is written in statutory law) is a good idea, then we should follow it to the tee.
If it is a bad idea, then we should abolish it.
If it is a good idea in some cases, but a bad idea in other cases, then we should change the code to reflect the discrepancies.
The notion that we should keep copyright law as it is, but, based purely on subjective assessment, accept copyright violation in some cases and not on others, is ludicrous.
You can bet that the subjective assessment of the violator and the holder differs almost every time.
This kind of dilution, i.e. keeping a law, but only obeying it when it serves the purpose of those who happen to have the upper hand (right now the file sharers), is precisely how civil liberties have been gradually lost.
It is because of this that the industry lobbies have managed to get whimsical liberty violating taxes such the blank media levy introduced in our society.
Fry is a great comedian, linguist and a number of other things. But he is no philosopher. He instinctly realizes that there is something badly wrong with copyright law, but being the nice guy that he is, it would be too much for him to ponder the possibility that copyright could be logically flawed at its very foundation, let alone say something like that aloud. So, his defense is a cop out: he is happy to keep the code (to keep his employers happy), but then doesn't feel like you always have to follow it.
Get back to throwing around your own feces! ;-)
Thanks for the kind words. How's it going with those hookers of yours?
You didn't need to write that long, serious, P-04-esque reply. I was just making a joke...you know, because you're a chimp.
As for Fry, although I like him and have liked a lot of stuff he's been in, I do find him a bit tiresome and pretentious sometimes. Only sometimes.
Oh, and the whores are great. I mean I just got back from Amsterdam, but the domestic market is always good. Mmm, apple pie pussy!
For the record, I never claimed to hold such an ambivalent position as you claim, TTL.
In fact, I'm pondering the option of expressing offense to your comment. Shall I?...
Oh, what's the hey, let's shall!
"You, sir, are an extremist!"
There, I hope that sounded nasty enough.
BTW, Dave, I also feel inclined to take offense from YOUR reference. "Serious"? ME? See my comment above, you Houyhnhnm "stallion", and shudder under the violence of the insult! (Which, by the way, is copyrighted. I inherited it from my father.)
BTW, Fry rocks. And some day, Leela will admit she always felt so!!!
Now, if you gentlemen will excuse me, I don't have time for all your monkey business. I'm due to King Louie's dancing party. We'll be going bananas in the coconut trees, and then we'll have fun playing with the Red Flower. Ook yeah!
BTW, Dave, I also feel inclined to take offense from YOUR reference. "Serious"? ME?
No, I referred only to length. I don't think anyone could accuse you of being overly serious. You are known for your long posts, but they're usually interesting enough that people don't mind! :)
Post a Comment