Am 16.07.2010 00:32, schrieb drew Roberts:
On Thursday 15 July 2010 16:43:48 Hartmut Noack wrote:
resulting change of how people think would simply eliminate the concept
of IP as we know it today.
As we know it today - in this I agree...
best regs,
HZN
Hartmut,
when you speak of IP, are you speaking of copyrights, patents, trademarks,
trade secrets, or some specific combination of them, or all of them?
I speak of copyrights. But speaking of the others also I would not want
to abolish any of these, I would want to change the application of these
rights.
During the Shogun-era in Japan samourai owned swords and they where
allowed to carry them wherever they go and they where officially allowed
to use them.
If a samourai had the feeling, that somebody from a "lower" caste of the
society did not show the due respect, he was allowed to kill this person
with his sword.
Today everybody in Japan is allowed to own a sword and nobody is allowed
to decapitate someone else with it - I guess, the japanese people like
that change of application of ownership rights regarding swords.
I find it perfectly OK, that people are allowed to own a sword or a
rapier. It may even go unpunished to use such a weapon in seldom cases
of self-defense.
But of course duelling is not tolerated anymore.
Authors should own copyrights and shall be allowed to use them for their
benefit. In a balanced, sensible way. Attribution forever, a right to
control commercial distribution for 10 years, a right to control every
distribution for 5 years. A right to forbid usage for advertisement. And
such rights should belong to the natural person, who is the author. And
no commercial organisations should be allowed to take over these rights
and use them 80% for their own benefit.
Trade secrets are OK but it would be absolutely NOT OK, if law allows
the holders of trade secrets to forbid research, that could lead to an
unveiling of such secrets. If someone finds out the recipe for Fanta by
legal means, this person must be allowed to tell everybody that Fanat
contains fish-jelly. Patents for 5-6 years would be OK, if prior-arts
regulations are faithfully met, if they are not trivial, not for
lifeforms, not for genes etc.
I have seen the outcome of experiments in destroying a system completely
and trying to build up a new one from scratch by theoretical philosophic
assumptions made by ideologic visionaries. East-germany was a
ridiculously obvious proof, that philosophers should not rule something
as complex as a human society. And the Milton-Friedman-school of
philosophical economics is still around and the Chicago-boys are still
allowed to try to implement their visions, that work the same as good as
communism worked in the east.
Gradual changes can be very revolutionary and they tend not to kill the
patient with the cure.
best regs
HZN
all the best,
drew
_______________________________________________
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
