Before you call someone "full of it" you might want to read their whole post. I discuss what the conditions of "lending" would be, and it's not dissimilar to what you say here.
The reason I posted about this topic is *because* in the music and film industry there are people aggressively arguing against anything like what you say the Nook does.
My post is an open discussion looking at various scenarios, trying to find a middle ground between the extreme arguments put forward by both sides.
My only 'argument' is that the law needs to be redefined in this area as it is currently outdated, written prior to the digital world, and is vague in areas of 'Fair Use' etc.
The only way to fix the problem is to acknowledge the reasons why so many people - otherwise law abiding citizens - do partake in this illegal activity. Part of the problem is anti-piracy campaigns that equate minor copyright infringement to large scale operations - the issue is more complex - this grandstanding is rejected by most people.
There are many good arguments for a better business model that meets consumer needs so that they don't feel the need to infringe copyright. Capitalists with large mark ups often cite that they are priced according to market demand - what the market is willing to pay. Conversly, the file sharing movement is a sure sign that in fact many are questioning those prices and, without a middleground option, will take it for free rather than pay too much.
At other times people download what they can't get through normal routes. Films are not always distributed to every country or every town - or at all. Once upon a time a 'bootleg' would find it's way from person to person, but you had to be in the know. Now things get uploaded online instead. E.g. American Boy was a bootleg that inspired many filmmakers including Tarentino. When a later doc was made wanting to use clips from this (american prince) the best quality footage was not the director's copy but rather the Youtube version.
Looking at file sharing in black and white legal terms allows no agreement between sides - instead we need to examine which situations where ethics and law are at odds and modify the law so that only the unethical cases are illegal.
I have a series of posts examining this issue in greater detail on my blog if you are interested - I welcome comments.
Who is full of it?
Hi McBeese,
Before you call someone "full of it" you might want to read their whole post. I discuss what the conditions of "lending" would be, and it's not dissimilar to what you say here.
The reason I posted about this topic is *because* in the music and film industry there are people aggressively arguing against anything like what you say the Nook does.
My post is an open discussion looking at various scenarios, trying to find a middle ground between the extreme arguments put forward by both sides.
My only 'argument' is that the law needs to be redefined in this area as it is currently outdated, written prior to the digital world, and is vague in areas of 'Fair Use' etc.
Piracy
Thanks, great post :)
The only way to fix the problem is to acknowledge the reasons why so many people - otherwise law abiding citizens - do partake in this illegal activity. Part of the problem is anti-piracy campaigns that equate minor copyright infringement to large scale operations - the issue is more complex - this grandstanding is rejected by most people.
There are many good arguments for a better business model that meets consumer needs so that they don't feel the need to infringe copyright. Capitalists with large mark ups often cite that they are priced according to market demand - what the market is willing to pay. Conversly, the file sharing movement is a sure sign that in fact many are questioning those prices and, without a middleground option, will take it for free rather than pay too much.
At other times people download what they can't get through normal routes. Films are not always distributed to every country or every town - or at all. Once upon a time a 'bootleg' would find it's way from person to person, but you had to be in the know. Now things get uploaded online instead. E.g. American Boy was a bootleg that inspired many filmmakers including Tarentino. When a later doc was made wanting to use clips from this (american prince) the best quality footage was not the director's copy but rather the Youtube version.
Looking at file sharing in black and white legal terms allows no agreement between sides - instead we need to examine which situations where ethics and law are at odds and modify the law so that only the unethical cases are illegal.
I have a series of posts examining this issue in greater detail on my blog if you are interested - I welcome comments.
Great article
Thanks for this, great article :)