"pjfjacks" <pjfjacks@xxxxxxxxxx>: > To say that a software author cannot "own" that software nor have > copyrights to it is the same as to say an author / poet / > screenwriter / columnist / etc. cannot have any control over his > work (or get paid for doing it) once it is finished. Well, this is really the case for most professional authoring/poeting/screenwriting/columnwriting already. Private persons aren't usually equipped to take advantage of the copyright laws, since they are designed for (and to a large extent by) publishing companies. So, to claim that protecting the current set of laws for immaterial monopolies is a protection of artist's and writer's rights is hypocrisy. Anyway, it's useless to argue about this in terms of who has the "right" to what. Copyright is a legal invention. Of course it should be discussed and changed as the premises for publication changes. In addition, people seem to forget it was invented to encourage _publication_. Obviously there has never been any need to motivate people economically to get them to express themselves creatively. For my part I see little reason to preserve a law for that purpose, now that we have the technology for anyone to publish any kind of content at practically no cost.
