more on who is to blame -- riaa

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Steve Lamont <spl () ncmir ucsd edu>
Date: August 19, 2006 10:03:49 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] who is to blame -- riaa

For IP, if you so desire, Professer Farber:

Dan Gillmor says:
> Every time we cite the RIAA, we are failing to cite the people who
> control it. And they succeed in deflecting the blame for their own
> reprehensible conduct.

Reprehensible conduct?  Those are pretty strong words.

All I see are companies defending their own legal property rights,
just like a homeowner might defend their own property rights against a
neighbor taking a chunk of their land.

Now you (and I) may disagree with the notion Sony/BMG, EMI,
Time-Warner, Universal, _et al_ have any right to something as
emphemeral as noise coming out of a speaker and challenge the notion
of "intellectual property" but, as it stands now, that's the law.

While I cast no aspersions on any individual, Mr Gillmor in
particular, for whom I have nothing but the greatest respect, I must
point out that I find it curious that many of those who rail against
the depredations of the entertainment conglomerates and their
surrogate, the RIAA, also rail against the extralegal depredations of
our current Administration.

Is "pirating" and/or trading in what the law considers another's
property, either for profit or not, anything other than a personal
"signing statement" that says "I do not choose to obey the mandates of
this law as it is written"?

If so, then on what moral ground do we stand in demanding that others,
such as the Administration, follow the letter of the law, when we,
ourselves, choose not to?

You and I may disagree with the laws governing "intellectual property"
and choose to engage in acts of civil disobedience in order to change
those laws, but it seems to me to be somewhat disingenuous when
confronted by legally constituted authority, to attempt to evade
punishment.  That's not how civil disobedience works.

If we disagree with a law, then we should lobby our legistlators to
change it.  If, as I expect some may say, they are "in the pockets" of
the entertainment conglomerates, then it is incumbent upon us as
citizens to replace them.

My own feelings on "intellectual property" are wildly (small "l")
libertarian ("information wants to be free", etc.), but my feelings on
the rule of law trump the libertarian ones every time.

Best regards.

                                                        spl

[Disclaimer: To the best of my knowledge, I hold no stocks or bonds in
any entertainment company other than perhaps indirectly through a
mutual or pension fund over which I have no direct control.  My
significant other currently owns shares in an entertainment company,
Disney, which I am currently attempting to get her to divest.]


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/