[kwlug-disc] Parliament adjourned ... bills dead (again!)?

[unsolicited]

Chris Frey wrote, On 03/29/2011 7:30 PM:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 06:17:41PM -0400, unsolicited wrote:
>> So let me ask you this: What is the right answer (speaking from a FOSS 
>> perspective)? [There is no wrong answer for you, in choosing whose 
>> ever rights you think are most important - I expect it depends upon 
>> whichever you personally feel closer to. You will lose no points. You 
>> will lose points if you say they are all equally important.]
> 
> *grin*  The interesting thing to me, is that in my view, the only right
> answer (whether I'm talking from a FOSS perspective or not) is that
> they should all be equal.  That is the answer that I'm really looking for,
> and it is probably the answer that I'll get, but for improper reasons.

Gotcha! (Particularly after reading Russell's blog.)

The consumer only has the rights granted to him by the 
creator/distributor. It is not an issue of fairness, from the get go 
there is no right of equality for the consumer.

Enter 'Fair Dealings', and such clarity goes all to heck.


> But if I was pressed, and I could not answer with "all equal", then I
> would say that if bias must exist at all, that it should always be
> in favour of the poor.  This means that the rights of rich corporations
> come after those of both the artist and the consumer.

So, if a rich creator is 'ripped off' by the poor masses, it's OK?

Poor and copyright, in this context, is an oxymoron.

Address 'poor' separately.

And although I appreciate the idea of the poor having access / redress 
to enforce their copyright, such would be considerably inconsistent 
with how similar is dealt with elsewhere. e.g. The poor wronged must 
still somehow come up with the funds to hire a lawyer, go to court, 
etc., etc. And, somehow, persevere when the wrongdoer delays to starve 
them out. [Yes, there are some programs, but I don't believe them to 
be entirely adequate.]

An admirable thought, but also separate from copyright. However, if 
you could get an appropriate statue in place, it could apply to 
copyright for the purposes you suggest.

But isn't, itself, part of copyright.

IMO.