On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello Dave! > > Your argument seems very-very convincing. But is it really? > > "Yeh, yeh, yeh, artists made art before copyright. What they didn't make was > as much money as they now stand to make because of it." > > So why not make up a law that, for instance, that allows bus drivers to make > more money? Like, make using your car illegal. And if you are a bus driver, > you would also say - "if you'd own a bus, you'd support that law, since > before I did not get that much money, now I have great income". So what? Do > bus drivers need more money? Do musicians need more money? Why? Why only > musicians then? Why not teachers? Why not make up a law to increase income > of washing ladies by making washing machines illegal? for the same precise reason that "copying is not theft" any single one of the measures you've cited removes the ability of the socially-agreed upon owner of an object, or holder of a job, to use what they "own" as they see fit (the teacher angle is a bit of a wierd case in your argument, but it doesn't break entirely). however, in the case of a creative work, the work's life begins at some point (or period) in time when its creator decides that s/he wants others to see/hear/touch/smell it. it doesn't take anything away from anyone to say *at that point* in time "the creator decides who can make a copy of this". making cars illegal to help bus drivers hurts car owners. making washing machines illegal to help washing ladies hurts owners of washing machines. placing limits on the ability to copy someone else's work hurts no-one if those limits are sensible. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
