From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Tue Jun 03 2003 - 18:06:13 MDT
Lee Daniel Crocker writes:
> I am faced with the unfortunate and perhaps hypocritical
> situation of wanting to recommend that other Extropians
> go sign an online petition that I cannot sign myself.
>
.
> I think this is
> an important issue for futurists, and I support the effort
> to pass this legislation, limited though it is. So, please
> go take a look at this petition:
>
> <http://www.petitiononline.com/eldred/petition.html>
>
> Now my ethical conundrum is that the first sentence of the
> petition says something along the lines of "while we believe
> in the value of copyright, we also believe in the value of a
> strong public domain..." Well, I personally don't believe in
> the value of copyright at all. I see this bill as a very
> tiny step in the right direction, so I support its goals,
> but I cannot in good conscience sign a statement I don't
> agree with.
You are a wonder Lee. ;-) I'd sign your petition but I'm not a
US citizen. Despite holding the view that it *is* possible in
principle to write laws that *do* mean something, the "bush
lawyer" (don't know if that term is a cultural one and will cross
the Pacific) in me reckons there must be a way for an imaginative
and motivated guy like yourself to resolve your dilemma with
ethics in-tact. There is wriggle room (ambiguity) in most forms
of human language.
The statement causing the concern is:
"We, the undersigned, while believing in the importance of
copyright, also believe in the importance of the public domain."
Consider the following.
1) Do you believe copyright law *exists* whether you agree
with it or not.
2) Do you believe its existence is important? ie. Seems to me
you thinks its important enough to think we'd be better of
without it. But that *still* means its important to you.
Besides, the statement "we" is a collective one. By your
own statement you suspect *most* do agree that copyright
is important. There is only one petition "we" are signing and
therefore the statement "we, the undersigned" (by
overwhelming majority *acting in concert* on the majority
view) do believe etc.
For some reason I'm reminded of Bertrand Russell talking
of Spinoza. "Ethically Spinoza was supreme." But Spinoza
suffered a lot.
I reckon you can sign with a clear conscience Lee, but it's
*your* conscience. ;-)
Brett Paatsch
(filing in for Lionel Hutz "attorney at law")
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 03 2003 - 18:19:53 MDT