On 27 June 2012 21:25, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 June 2012 18:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:> And hell, there really are two points of view about copyright,
I understand you've not really studied the subject but there are far more than that.
Let's just start with the notion that there might be more than just *one* view. ;)
It's a question of extremes.
At one extreme there are, for example, music executives who see a risk to they fat paychecks, and prefer a model where they can control the distribution and license costs indefinitely.
On the other extreme are people who not only want something for nothing, but consider it an inherent right they deserve it.
I find both of these people objectionable.
<ascends soap box>
The aggravating thing about copyright reform lobby is that I often find myself surrounded by the latter people - the utter dregs of society. As mentioned somewhere here the idea of intellectual property is a moral right; lack of respect for this is yet another symptom of our declining social standards.
</dismounts>
O'dwyer is an odd case. I don't begrudge him the opportunity to make good money he saw (the media seem not to be interested in how much he has stashed away... but from his own words, I imagine it is a fair amount) He is far from an impoverished and defenceless individual.
I'm not a fan of extraditing him. But I would like to see a firmer stance taken in the UK; perhaps a court could rule he must pay compensation to the copyright holders of the works he linked to.
On the topic of Jimmy; Wikipedia is his calling card, it opens doors. I think he hasn't done enough in many situations to distance his own views from us; which is unfortunate. But not necessarily deliberate :)
As I said before; Wikipedia should have it's own view.
It would be interesting to see the community develop its own high profile media contacts so this view can be communicated to the world!
Tom