Oh they can be real replies. I have a friend in a band, and the other night he started asking me how I could possibly defend piracy because didn't I want my favorite artists to keep making money?
Besides putting words in my mouth (claiming that stating that piracy is inevitable and people should stop suing over it means that I encourage piracy) when I asked him if an illegal download is stealing, his answer was an unequivocal yes. When I asked him why copyright should be so long, and did he really think that only his children's children should be able to use his work without permission, he again stated yes, and that no one else should be able to use it. When I said that copyright shouldn't be a welfare system, he asked why not and said he was perfectly fine with it being that way, and that maybe the public domain was given too much credit and perhaps we've gotten to a point where there shouldn't be a public domain anymore because why should anyone else get to profit off his labor?
No, he wasn't trolling. Yes, he really believes that. No, I don't know how to argue with someone who has a viewpoint that strong in that direction.
Wasn't that the point of the whole article? Not that Warner couldn't do the movie, but that the question of exclusivity is where the issue lies? Or did I read a different article and then end up posting here?
Lobby groups feel the same to me as home owner associations... there's gotta be a few good ones out there, that help people out, but I'll be danged if the ones that make the news don't just leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Enshrining moral imperatives in law reminds me of how some rules were enforced back when I was in school. If you got caught, you were forced to spend X number of hours volunteering at a local charity. I didn't have any issues with charity work as a punishment, but using the word 'volunteer' always sat poorly with me. If I was forced to do it, it was no longer volunteering.
Same with morals being made a law. If you only do something because the law says you must / must not, it's no longer really a moral decision.
I don't doubt that firms will eventually come around to embracing what technology can do. The cassette tape was eventually embraced. The VCR was eventually embraced. Lots of stuff was eventually embraced. I just wish they'd look back at these examples and then start embracing new technology more quickly instead of dragging out the same old tired schtick.
I bet you're dead wrong. If universities were charging the access copyright money and throwing it into a pot, either tuition would go up, or the amount of student services would go down. Either way, it would affect their bottom line because they'd lose students over it.