Framing web pages

[Bradley Hook]

Oren Beck wrote:

> While I totally agree on the unsettled nature of what "IP" rules
> should or not be - My post was my attempt to direct consensus in a
> "least harm and greatest good" path.
> 
> It's NOT the petty concern about the odd fool who link pests some Icon
> on LiveUrinal;
> It IS about the ownership of what a person creates. *YOU* being in the
> design world should grok the concept. As in the degree of freedom one
> trades for security. Or the reverse.
> Ethics to render DRM  a moot point perhaps? We can dream eh?
> 
> To be pretty Blunt about it- the AUTHOR should have some retention of
> control beyond the already accepted exceptions. Denial of author's
> rights will stifle open exchange out of self defense in many cases.
> But does it have to be so?
> More on that in what I call the Garcia Vs Brooks logic sets.
> 
> Garcia: Ok folks-start your recorders this is the first time we're
> playing this tune.
> 
> Brooks: Whinges to Congress about sales of used cd's dooming his kids
> to public school.
> 
> Where we the Tech class come in is to direct a world order that allows
> and CHERISHES the Garcia model while not spitefully ripping Brooks off
> by blatant immoral THEFT.
> 
> Example one-Sell a used cd- yes.. Just like selling a book. Tell Garth
> to grow up.
> 
> Example two -Host a torrent for "Author Authorised" music yes, A
> tribute to Jerry it is.
> 
> Buy a new cd only 3 hours old- post on server- For shame you bad karma thief!
> 
> Do please tell me how you justify the last example or demonise the first 2?
> 
> It's close to the same in web content, MY point was directed more to
> the following crimes.
> 
> "False claim of Authorship" You claim YOU wrote it when you know you did not.
> 
> "Theft of service that costs real money." Some hosting services CHARGE
> per transfer Gb.
> 
> We can from this point either degenerate to bickering -or seek
> consensus on what's ethical or not.

The ethics part of this is a two way street. And this is, as I see it,
where most of the problem comes from. All we ever hear about is the
college kids that are using P2P to rip off the "artist's" intellectual
property.

While the consumer has a responsibility to acquire and use content in a
legal and legitimate manner, the content creator has a responsibility to
the consumer. I have no problem paying an author/artist a fair fee for
their creation or performance. I do have a problem with that
author/artist expecting to rake in ridiculous royalties for the next 70
years based on the 6 months it took to produce something, and on every
single copy created even when the consumer is footing the bill for
reproduction.

It's the same thing with software. I have no problem paying someone an
hourly wage to code a project for me. I have no problem paying them more
money to come out and spend time fixing code or adding a new feature for
me. I do have a problem with paying a company a yearly license fee to
have the right to continue using software which I (and millions of
others) have already paid for 3 or 4 times.

Copyright and IP laws in the US have developed into an absurd mess of
legal bullshit that is hurting our intellectual growth. So if you are
going to dive into the ethics of this stuff, make sure you consider both
angles:

Ethical responsibility of consumers to content creators.
Ethical responsibility of content creators to the general public.

You can't have one without the other, else you create an unsustainable
system.

~Bradley