Phil Dadson wrote:
Yes, I reckon ADA should make a statement.
On the one hand we want availability, accessability and all that goes
with internet immediacy, and on the other, protection against the
piracythat cheats artists of a livelihood. I propose we initiate the
"rites of copy" a manifesto of a kind that advances the principle of
shared resources of all mankind, along with which we instigate a set of
rites, the 'ethics of respect' for all downloaders – willynilly or not –
to invoke before they embark on their hunt, much as our early ancestors
might have incanted to pacify the hunted.
Rite#1 Open my ears and open my eyes to the efforts of others from which
I take pleasure (rpt x 3)
Rite#3 Homage to the creative pool from which all things flow: I O U
(rpt x 3)
Rite#2 I will repay, I will repay, I will repay with a gift to another
(rpt x 3)
Yes. Rites are an excellent idea, and while I am not sure about the
idea of a creative pool, the theme of humility and gratitude is exactly
The hunter-gatherer metaphor fits well but not perfectly. Perhaps we
need to also look at agrarian ethics of respect (all that stuff about
commending the goat to god and not cooking it in its mother's milk)
because downloading can be performed as much like harvest as hunt. Of
course, the ecological and economic damage of greed falls differently
than either, but you have to start somewhere and the rite is more about
averting psychic harm to the individual. Or is it just to put them in
the right frame of mind?
Thinking back to the law: it ought to be a defence against copyright
claims if you can prove you actually watched or heard the file in
question. Perhaps you would need to keep a pirate's dairy, noting your
reactions to each piece. Those guilty of being collectors would pay.