I'm beginning to think this entire debate is a "generation thing."
I was discussing this issue with a friend over his house. His 16-year old daughter eventually got into the conversation. After a while, she went out and came back with her laptop, with the browser open to a webpage. The page was showing a blog at wordpress.com posted by someone (allegedly a high school student) who tackles the twin issues of copyright and 'fair use.'
After giving it a critical read, I reached the conclusion that the article displayed some of the sloppiest thinking imaginable. My friend's daughter, on the other hand, thought that the blogger cut through "all the B.S." and put the issue to rest "once and for all. "
"I thought his post was
brilliant! I'd love to see THEM
try and come up with an intelligent rebuttal to
that!" she told us.
I shrugged and told her that despite the fact it was a fairly well-written posting, it didn't really make the point she thought it did. The arguments were weak, contained several logical fallacies, and the author's understanding of ethics was marginal at best.
Since she looked confused, I asked her if she wanted me to explain. When she said yes, I began to go over the the posting line by line to see if we were in agreement as to what the blogger was saying. Once we agreed we were both reading the same thing, I started to analyze the arguments.
Unfortunately, when I then began to systematically take the blogger's 'argument' apart, she first became defensive, then frustrated, and finally very angry. "
Your generation will
never understand," she said. "Because you're all just too
in-doctrinated to see how
THEY control the way
you think."
(Sorry for all the italics. My friend's daughter is an absolute master of inflection, and I though it too good to let it go waste.

)
Well...when I went to school, it is true that I was 'indoctrinated' in logic, rhetoric, grammar, rules of debate, techniques of propaganda, basic citizenship, history, and philosophy.
So now I'm wondering if maybe I might have missed something in this "brilliant argument" she pointed me to:
Link to blog:
http://trombonechamp...e-fear-of-knowledge/...
Copyright infringement should not be based on fear. Fear is a very powerful tool that is all to often exploited by governments and those in power to get the information they want stuffed into people’s minds. Where do you think Mrs. Smith learned this information? Was it a credible source? Chances are it was, which brings up the question of who you can really trust. If people stopped blindly trusting the government, what would happen to fear as a propaganda technique? When discussing copyright, it is best to decide where your ethics are. “Should I share an ogg (or mp3) of this out of print CD with my friend?” “Should I consider a small violation of the DMCA a crime if I will only be using the content for what used to be called ‘fair use’?” “Should I cite this public domain resource?” “Should I tell my friends about this artist and give them this audio file to get them interested?” “Should I download this BBC documentary I found on BitTorrent so I can learn about Elephant migration patterns for my report on African mammals?” There are so many possibilities. The government has drawn an unreasonably inhibitory line in the dirt, and used fear to enforce it. As a result, the only way to figure out what is right or wrong is to make the ethical decision yourself.
