Copyright

Come now, Steam. You know credentials don't make a person right or wrong.

In this case, I'm afraid they do, since 6h legally lacks the authority to interpret those laws in any way that would modify or alter the likelihood of others to comply with them, unless 6h has a law degree we've yet to speak about.

Anyone can have an opinion on the interpretation of a law. But that opinion is just that--no more legally binding than the choice of Froot Loops over Cap'n Crunch. Regardless of the personal opinion of the interpretation of the law, unless one is officially interpreting the law in a legal capacity with legal authority, they are still bound to obey it or suffer the consequences of breaching it.

We can sit here in this thread and discuss our opinions until we're blue in the face, but my initial post is about adherence to the law--which is required to be the law as written--or the consequences of failing to do so. Not personal interpretations of copyright and artists' work.

How do we follow the letter of the law if not all situations are explicitly defined?

I also guess that my music business professor was wrong when teaching me about this stuff. Who was in fact an entertainment lawyer.

The law seeks to define imprecisely to allow for interpretations. Case law is where specifics are defined. Which are situational at best. Being paid to be a lawyer? No. But there is a reason that an individual is allowed to represent themselves in court. If they can read, understand and interpret the statutes and case law involved, they can more than adequately represent themselves, by interpreting the laws. The value in legal counsel is experience and impartiality.

I'm STILL not advocating piracy. Why is that getting lost in this dialog?

I think one of the toughest parts of this discussion is the idea of laws and rights as "things". Much like words, time, language, distance, etc. they are still human contrivances created to serve a useful purpose, and I believe much of the difficulty here that is cropping up is because some of us mistake them for being actual real "things" while others completely refute them outright, regardless of their obvious utility for the people they help.

So here's my take on things after carefully thinking on it: because "laws" and "rights" have no inherent existence outside of the societies and cultures that institute them (even human rights would be moot if there were no humans to invent the idea), we should not blindly cede to copyright law because it is the law - this would be false ethics. What we should do is educate ourselves to potential consequences of our actions, and then do our best to follow the law when it is the "right", compassionate, ethical, and generally kind spirited, "Jedi" way to do so.

Arguing all of this on the basis of law alone gets us nowhere without the basic recognition that in doing the things we do, we could perhaps be robbing someone of a meal, rent, electricity or water utilities. To knowingly do such a thing - even after having considering what Jediism in general, and the Temple doctrine in particular, mean to us - goes beyond tossing aside the social constructs that we're learning are fiction, and instead steps into a realm of flagrant violation of some of the most basic concepts of what it means to us to be Jedi

In other words, copyright law is irrelevant, compassion to our fellow human beings should be relevant enough to us on its own merits to respect the "copyright" of artists of all sorts.

^this

Thank you Cryo, that's what I've been attempting to get across

CryojenX wrote: In other words, copyright law is irrelevant, compassion to our fellow human beings should be relevant enough to us on its own merits to respect the "copyright" of artists of all sorts.

I agree about the Jedi bit, but they are both relevant in different ways depending on where the poster's particular interest lies.... with such a broad thread title of copyright both seem acceptable

Some Jedi have respect for the law. But, we also have reverence for the Ineffable (The Force).

Source: Jedi Compass.

The law is only respectable and freeing so long as those creating and enforcing those laws are respectable and not oppressive. Legality is a concept. When used appropriately, it makes society a better place where all can flourish. When used to oppress and control it is no higher an ideal than criminality.