Decisions, decisions

[lethargic_man]

This Sunday, I have the choice of:

At the New North London shul, Rabbi Dr Louis Jacobs and Rabbi Jonathan Wittenberg speaking at the launch of the former's book Judaism and Theology: Essays on the Jewish Religion.

Or, alternatively, the Marom Shmooze on "Halachah - Jewish law, Masorti, What I'm Obliged to Do and Liverpool Football Club": "[...] If the law does not seem to reflect the values of its adherents, at what point does one say 'screw the rules'?"^*

Aagh, decisions, decisions. Both sound interesting... but I've already passed by the opportunity to hear Louis Jacobs speak once, and I don't want to repeat what happened when I missed (though no fault of my own) the opportunities to hear both Jim Watson and Francis Crick speak within weeks of each other in 1995, and knew that would be the last chance I'd get - and indeed Francis Crick has since died. (Louis Jacobs is 84.)

OTOH Louis Jacobs is speaking again in a few weeks on the relevance of the Rambam.

I expect I'll probably go to the Jacobs talk...

* Case in point: the translation of various tractates of Talmud I referred to on my blog earlier this week. Copyright law has become grossly extended by the multinational corporations; why on earth should an author's descendants seventy-five years after their death (in the States) still be receiving royalties on their work? (Speaking as a writer myself, I'd revert the cut-off back to death plus twenty-five.) And why should it be illegal to make compilation CDs of the tracks I like off the CDs I bought legally? (Previously legal here but outlawed by the EU Copyright Directive the other year.) But what about a corporate work produced forty-five years ago. Where does the ethical cut-off lie?

Comments

[liv]

rysmiel and I had a discussion about this a while ago.
The fact that you had a discussion with rysmiel is not liable to convince me of anything! You might actually present some of the arguments that came up in this discussion. If you meant to imply: and rysmiel agrees with me, that still doesn't count as an argument.

For example, the law says that cyclists may not have flashing lights on their bike unless they have a non-flashing one as well. However, from my point of view a flashing one is much more visible to the surrounding traffic, and at the end of the day, it's visibility that saves my life as a cyclist on the street at night.
But the law doesn't (AFAIK) forbid you to have a flashing light! You can preserve your safety and still keep the law by having both. And if you think the law is inappropriately formulated, there are lots of channels, official and unofficial, by which you can try to get it changed.

Also, how is that analogous to the copyright issue? You're not hurting anyone by having a flashing light when the law prefers a steady light. Unlike when you're disregarding copyright protections and making it less likely for artists to be rewarded for their work.