>Well, sorry if i've offended you, but the point i was trying to make is
>that if you're an artist, and you really don't care that the law says that
>practicing your art the way you're practicing it is wrong, in fact says
>that if it decides to it can DESTROY your art and fine you and maybe put
>you in jail, then, well, that just seems really contradictory and
>pointless and weak. To not care about what you do to the extent that
>you agree with those who would prevent you from doing it (stating that
>copyright law is okay the way it is), that's just a waste. (that's where
>spineless and confused came from.)
>
I don't particularly think of myself as an artist. i make sound because i
enjoy listening to it, and it gives me pleasure -- reason enough? i don't
feel any particular need to philosophise about what i do. As far as the law
is concerned, my position is basically "disregard it".
This does bring up one point worth considering. I don't believe the
copyright law is any threat to me, but maybe that's because of the country i
live in (scotland, for those who weren't paying attention). Who are "they"
going to sue? The pressing plant, the artists and the label are all in
different countries, and no bunch of lawyers could ever find any of them.
In the U.S. it may be different.. But i'm not sure if any of the horror
stories you hear (pressing plants being sued etc) have ever come to pass.
And the two most celebrated "victims", negativland and john oswald, seem to
be doing ok as far as i can see.
>
>3. For at least the first 2 cases and probably the third, the list member
>would logically be favorably inclined toward THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE AND
>CREATION of this kind of cultural work.
>
>4. Current copyright law is clearly opposed to this type of cultural
>work.
>
>5. Therefore most people on this list, it is reasonable to assume, would
>favor changes to copyright law, if not society's overall attitude toward
>intellectual property.
>
>Maybe, GASK, I misunderstand your position. If so, I invite you to
>elaborate.
>
Points 3, 4 and 5 agreed; however, as i have said I do not consider the law
a threat and so do not advocate changing it. In the case of the law
threatening others (e.g. U.S. residents), i am yet to be convinced that the
law will restrict their works being made public in one form or another.
(waiting for someone to convince me..)
> (there may be others, like lawyers from Sony collecting evidence against
>us all, but they have not made themselves known.
You wish....
On a separate point, is email admissible in the courts?
what about in scots law? surely not.
FG
>smh
>
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori list archives & other information are at
http://detritus.net/contact/rumori
----------------------------------------------------
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.