Hi,
Louigi Verona wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Paul Davis
<paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
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.
Yes, this is actually the core of all copyright discussions, namely -
can ideas be property?
I think ideas cannot be property and I show why I think so here:
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=authorship&a=authorship_property
<http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=authorship&a=authorship_property>
I also do not believe an author has any right to control what he has
created in the general case.
And because I think so, I do not agree that placing limits on the ability
to copy does not hurt anyone.
I think there maybe is an ambiguity in the word and concept of
'copying'... How would you (Louigi) feel if I took the text at
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=linux_types
which (I guess) is a work you took time and effort to write, copied
(ripped it), printed it and sold it at $10 a copy changing the title and
putting under my own name without of course even giving you credit?
Maybe *you* would evem be ok with that, but do understand people who may
feel a little upset by it.
That said I do personally like the concept of creative commons and open
licenses (otherwise I would probably not be writing on such a list), and
I also think that the 'making a living out of it' is too much of a
simplification. In Italy I've heard of composers paying 80 Euro/year tax
to the (monopoly) collecting society (SIAE) and often get forfeit
amounts for their music which enable them to just go even so the 'making
a living' thing is not always so straight forward.
It seems some famous audio software developer has been able to make a
living thanks to donations while releasing his app open source.. can't
recall the guy's name though :)
Also, denying that digital media have changed some of the copyright
paradigms which in many countries date to the 1930s is as naive as using
the words 'free' and 'open' too much.
All, of course, in my humble opinion.
Bests,
Lorenzo.
It does hurt everyone - because the ability
to copy is so easy to execute. And such limitations on ideas become
draconian limitations, they always
tend to increase.
The allegories with cars and buses are bad, like any allegories, but
they did show my point, I believe.
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
