Aren’t you suggesting that the RIAA’s profit motivation taints its argument against protecting intellectual property? My point is that both can be equally true. The profit motivation is irrelevant, so long as their case for protecting intellectual property is valid.
Again, this is the basic non sequitur I originally detected. If it is a given for you that the BSA holds human dignity and rights in contempt by virtue of its policy on homosexuality, then the activity patch on copyrighted materials is a red herring. You could say the same thing about any other merit badge in the program. Why would this article create such an episode of cognitive dissonance for you? Why not the merit badge for bird watching? (“Oh, right, learning to recognize @#$%ing birds is a greater value than protecting human rights.”)
Um, no, I’m “suggesting” that the RIAA’s views on copyright laws are draconian.
You seem almost to be suggesting that, since the profit motive is not an analloyed evil, then it therefore somehow anoints the RIAA with an immunity to examination of the details of its policies and motivations.
There’s a lot of insistant black-and-whiteness in this thread; a lot of excluded middle. If I say that I believe that the RIAA’s views on copyright laws are draconian, doesn’t that imply, pretty explicitly, a spectrum? that I believe their views are *too severe * suggests pretty clearly that I believe there must be a less severe approach; there’s no suggestion there to throw the baby out with the bathwater, which seems to be the only objection being raised here.
The debate on copyright laws is not finished; most of the people objecting to my opinion in this thread seem to be laboring under the belief that it is.
Please reread my posts; I’ve covered tha distinction pretty clearly, I thought. Birdwatching is morally neutral; the two examples I’m comparing are *not * morally neutral.
Again with the repeating myself because you seem to be skimming my posts without picking up much of their substance.
Elevating the destructive corporate greed of the RIAA above human dignity is morally reprehensible to me. “Birdwatching”? Talk about your non-sequitur.
Yes, yes, I have already detected that you have a great affection for this adjective.
No, I didn’t. I didn’t assign any value to the profit motive. I simply said it wasn’t relevant. Whether or not it is greatly advantageous to the RIAA for the public to accept its argument has no bearing–none–on the strength of its argument. To suggest otherwise would be a logical fallacy.
What I see you doing is reacting in shocked amazement that an organization would support the protection of copyrighted material. Read your link again. Your reaction seems like a rather black-and-white assessment of this BSA program, and forgive me for inferring that you seem rather down on it.
This is the post I responded to:
Do you believe that all corporate commercial property rights are inherently wrong? If not, then this is still an apt comparison. If you hold that only these particular rights are wrong, you’re begging the question. Why are these wrong? Your OP, again, begs the question, if this is the point you were attempting to advance.
Again, you are begging the question. You act as if you were commenting on a new merit badge for killing puppies. You are shocked–shocked!–that anyone wouldn’t be outraged over an organization that supports killing puppies while tromping on human rights.
Don’t get too upset.
The BSA is evaporating rapidly.
Nobody really wants to wear the goofy uniforms.
I have said several times that this is not the case.
I’m not trying to convince you that you’re wrong. If you agree wholeheartedly, in every detail, with the RIAA’s stance on copyright laws, then you are going to disagree with me on my take on the BSA’s teaching them as morally righteous. I’m not all that interested in convincing you otherwise.
If you also hold corporate profits–even at the expense of the artists who generate those profits, and at the expense of smaller, independent labels–higher, on a moral scale, than tolerance of gays (not to say that you do hold such; only speaking hypothetically), then you will disagree with my reaction to this news item. I’m not all that interested in convincing you otherwise.
Mostly why I put this in the Pit, and not GD; I didn’t want it be just another go-around on copyright law, which has been done pretty much to death around here.
I have a pretty liberal, pro-artist stance on copyright law (I’m a published writer and an occasionally professional artist; I know a huge number of individuals who pay the rent based on copyright laws). I also, obviously, have a pretty liberal take on gay rights.
On both counts, the BSA has proven once again to have an abominable record, and I celebrate this evidence of their continued slide into marginalized obscurity.
(And FWIW, smartass, the reason I kept repeating the word “draconian” is because you kept ignoring it. I was not railing against copyright laws, but only agains draconian copyright laws, but you kept reacting as if I had not included the adjective.)
I still don’t see where encouraging Boy Scouts not to illegally download movies or music equates to indoctrinating them with this as a core value, or elevating this above human dignity and rights.
Of course it’s lame. It’s the Boyscouts, fer chrissake.
For what it’s worth, you might find it interesting that it’s pretty nearly universal among the many many MANY artist I know that the RIAA’s stance on copyright laws is, well, draconian: my liberal views on copyright laws are nearly universal among the actual, on the ground, rent-paying professional artists that I know.
If that suggest anything about anything, well, then, there it is.
Or possibly even “more and more Draconian”?
That “draconianer” is a cool word though.
Count me in amongst those who think the patch is stupid but hardly something to get all worked up about.
I don’t pretend to have the expertise to have any sort of conclusive opinion on the RIAA. I do agree (I think we’re in agreement) that what appeared to me to be a fundamental disagreement was actual a semantical quibble. You hold that the RIAA’s stance, in its severity, it an object of obvious disdain. Assuming as much your OP would be taken in a certain way. To me, based on the cite provided, the BSA’s program seems the equivalent of encouraging boy scouts not to shoplift. Hence my reaction. I realize now what you intended to convey with the OP. I think you now understand the basis of my reaction. We now may have a difference of opinion, but no disagreement otherwise.
My only reaction to this, again, is that it hardly seems a given that the RIAA holds its position at the expense of artists, though clearly that’s your belief. I now understand that you offer it as a given. I haven’t the expertise to dispute it. I merely hold the uninitiated position that intellectual property ought to be protected, which I understand you do not dispute.
Well, whether or not I was being a smartass, that was in reaction your offering the definition. I know what the word means.
All cool. The reason I offered the definition is because you (though not you alone) seemed to keep reacting as I was objecting to copyright laws, adjective-free, when I was only objecting to the extreme views on copyright that the RIAA holds. It didn’t seem to be getting across that it was specifically the “draconian” that I was talking about.
And I guess in my circles, it *is * more of a given that the RIAA is the devil’s home office on earth. And, again, my circle includes more than a few professional, performing, recording musicians; professional writers; and professional gallery artists, as well as professional designers. I’d estimate that the majority of people that I consider friends are what you call “content providers.” The RIAA is pretty roundly demonized by exactly the people that it purports to be protecting. Anecdotally speaking. So yeah, I guess I thought it was something of a given.
Can you expand on this? I know you didn’t want to turn this into an RIAA thread, but I’d welcome the insight. Why does this model penalize the artist?
The RIAA is nowhere to be found in the linked article in the OP.
There’s no connection between RIAA and this merit badge. Their ideas, policies, beliefs are pretty much immaterial when discussing this particular merit badge because there’s nothing that ties the RIAA to the Boy Scouts.
Or at least no presented information that does so.
I write poetry, an art for which there is pretty much zero compensation. The number of people writing it doesn’t seem to be hampered by the lack of money.
There’s also zero investment expense. Cutting an album is a bit more pricey. Making a movie infinitly more so. Who’s going to bankroll films, if they can’t turn a profit from it?