[LINK] Jailbreaking (was: Inaccessible web sites)

Kim Holburn kim at holburn.net
Thu Feb 18 15:41:46 AEDT 2010


On 2010/Feb/17, at 9:51 PM, Ivan Trundle wrote:

> I suspected that this would migrate to hair splitting, but  
> nonetheless, it's a very fine hair.

The problem is that the idea of copyright infringement as theft or  
stealing or piracy is part of the propaganda from corporate  
distributors.

> If the interpretations made on Link are any guide,

I think there are lots of people on link who create copyrighted works  
for a living.  Journalists, writers, academics.  People with a stake  
in copyright.  People with all sorts of views on copyright.  Doesn't  
mean you can ignore the basic technological changes that are racing  
towards us with the inevitability of a car crash in slow motion.

> I'd be surprised if any software development involving profit had  
> any future whatsoever! I look forward with interest to the day that  
> replicators can reproduce anything that is ever imagined and  
> invented, so that I can eat and live without such stupid  
> encumbrances as the desire to make enough money to live. It'll make  
> the world a better place. Gene Roddenberry was on the right track  
> when he created Star Trek and imagined the 24th Century (Plato's  
> Republic, anyone?).
>
> And I'm not saying that this is bad or good: I'm not religious about  
> it either.
>
> But I still maintain my position. Copyright is an ass, but there are  
> times when it protects the things that people create, for better or  
> for worse. Ideas can be stolen as much as chattels. (Kisses can be  
> stolen too - English is wonderful). But of course the legal  
> profession loves to tie itself in knots over such things, and they  
> are not useful arbiters of the English language.
>
> It's simply disagreeable for someone who creates something unique  
> (at their own cost) in order to make a living to have that something  
> reproduced by others with no profit (in whatever guise that might  
> be) to the creator.

I agree with the basic spirit but throughout history people have been  
creating things and had them copied against their wishes and even had  
their attribution as a creator stolen from them, copyright or no  
copyright.

I might add that many if not most of the things created by people are  
not of interest to most people and current copyright systems do not  
help them in the slightest, in fact make it even  more difficult for  
their creations to become popular.  Popular of course ultimately means  
"copied", albeit in an authorised way.

> I'm unlikely to convince anyone on Link, but it's simply my view. It  
> might also be inconsistent with anyone else, but I'm not unduly  
> worried or even particularly passionate about it. I also respect  
> other people's views on the matter.
>
> There are far more important things in life to worry about.


I think the way intellectual property is going it is a concern at a  
basic survival level.  For instance when millions of poor people are  
dying of diseases that we could find cures for but won't because it  
doesn't make enough money for corporate patent holders, intellectual  
property has much to answer for.  When large seed companies (or a  
large seed company) use their legal might to put local and traditional  
seed companies out of business and force farmers to buy patented crop  
varieties that they are not allowed to keep seed from and replant  
themselves it could and will impact on the survival of many people.   
And it is happening right now.

Kim

-- 
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408  M: +61 404072753
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request












More information about the Link mailing list