Re: Releasing the "source code" of music
Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:08 pm
What I meant is that I don't give extra credence to bold fonts or emoticons etc. I assume it's all trying to discuss a *serious* topic in a light-hearted, friendly-enough way, which is fine. For effective online discussion, we must avoid overreacting to particular words etc. There's no conflict between serious topics and light-hearted discourse. There's no need to be solemn.
42low, you have not made a compelling case at all that "copying is theft" is an idea that is adding any clarity or value to the discussion. It seems only to be used to assert that everyone is supposed to feel the same way about unauthorized copying as they would feel about their private property getting stolen. Well, maybe that's not what you meant, but I'm telling you that it's easy to interpret it that way. You haven't done step one in pursuing actual understanding: acknowledge the point I've repeated that there are fundamental differences between non-rivalrous goods and their use and sharing versus rivalrous goods and their ownership or theft etc.
To put another way, we have two valid choices: (A) we refuse to talk about copying as "theft" or similar or (B) we accept for this discussion that wording but acknowledge that theft of my car or theft of my shirt is a totally different type of thing than "theft" of my song by using it in a way I don't authorize.
option (C) of insisting that unauthorized use of my song *is* like stealing my car is totally invalid. It has no basis in reality and would amount to refusing to have an honest discussion.
I prefer option A and am willing to have a discussion based on option B.
I don't want to derail the discussion by arguing about why option A is the right option and B is wrong.
42low, you have not made a compelling case at all that "copying is theft" is an idea that is adding any clarity or value to the discussion. It seems only to be used to assert that everyone is supposed to feel the same way about unauthorized copying as they would feel about their private property getting stolen. Well, maybe that's not what you meant, but I'm telling you that it's easy to interpret it that way. You haven't done step one in pursuing actual understanding: acknowledge the point I've repeated that there are fundamental differences between non-rivalrous goods and their use and sharing versus rivalrous goods and their ownership or theft etc.
To put another way, we have two valid choices: (A) we refuse to talk about copying as "theft" or similar or (B) we accept for this discussion that wording but acknowledge that theft of my car or theft of my shirt is a totally different type of thing than "theft" of my song by using it in a way I don't authorize.
option (C) of insisting that unauthorized use of my song *is* like stealing my car is totally invalid. It has no basis in reality and would amount to refusing to have an honest discussion.
I prefer option A and am willing to have a discussion based on option B.
I don't want to derail the discussion by arguing about why option A is the right option and B is wrong.