Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 00:48:33 -0600 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in>, "Victor R. Cardona" <vcardona@home.com>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Stallman stalls again Message-ID: <15020.28993.192354.986367@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010311230800.00e19bd0@localhost> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010311193801.0441d3c0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20010306122244.04477f00@localhost> <20010305200017.D80474@lpt.ens.fr> <4.3.2.7.2.20010305123951.04604b20@localhost> <20010305205030.G80474@lpt.ens.fr> <4.3.2.7.2.20010305125259.00cfdae0@localhost> <20010305142108.A17269@marx.marvic.chum> <4.3.2.7.2.20010306011342.045fb360@localhost> <20010306081025.A22143@marx.marvic.chum> <4.3.2.7.2.20010306092612.00b79f00@localhost> <20010306174618.N32515@lpt.ens.fr> <4.3.2.7.2.20010311230800.00e19bd0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> types: > At 11:06 PM 3/11/2001, Mike Meyer wrote: > >Not throwing out the baby with the bath water is only useful if you > >know what the baby is. > The "baby" is the concept of copyright. If you believe that, then you've already made up your mind, and discussing the issue is pointless. Creators publishing is the baby. Copyright is merely the mechanism to encourage that. > >The reason the monopoly exists is to encourage > >creators to publish, yet still allow them to be compensated for their > >work. The "baby" isn't copyright per se - it's compensating creators > >to encourage them to publish. > Nope. Copyright isn't compensation in and of itself. It merely gives > the author the right to demand compensation IF people use it. If his > work is not appealing or valuable, and no one uses it, he gets > nothing. Right. Copyright *allows* the author to be compensated. It isn't the compensation. Nor does it allow the author to demand compensation for mere use. I use all the books I check out from the library, but neither the author nor the publisher gets more compensation for my use - though publishers are trying to change that. Any mechanism that allows the author to be compensated if they publish will serve the same purpose. If you want, read "make available for the public to use" for "publish"; it amounts to the same thing. If the public can't get to the work, there's no way they can do something that copyright allows the author to demand compensation for. If the public can get to the work - well, one definition of publish is "to disseminate to the public". > >Note that *publishing* is the critical issue here. It's clearly > >possible to make money creating things without copyright laws, as > >performers and programmers do so on a regular basis. Some even make a > >living doing that way. However, those people either don't publish, or > >don't expect to make money publishing. > Copyright applies to far more than just publishing. For example, it > also applies to public performance for profit, etc. This is a bit vague. A public performance itself isn't copyrightable. A recording of it is. As in other cases, copyright encourages the publication of those by allowing the creators to be compensated. Likewise, *making* a public performance is an act covered by copyright. As such, it can be treated as another aspect of publication. Creating the recording is an interesting case, but historically can be either allowed or not by the performers. > >I have no idea what might replace copyright, and I'm sure that any > >such change will cause economic dislocation - probably of a serious > >nature. The existence of computers has been doing that since they > >became commercially available, including the shameful way publishers > >are attempting to destroy fair use. > I think that unbridled theft of copyrighted material is shameful too. So do I. It's clearly illegal and immoral. However, it is *not* causing a major economic dislocation, wherease the publishers mucking with fair use and related rights is threatening an entire profession. > As I said near the beginning of this thread, we need to broker a new > peace -- not instigate or escalate a war. I agree. In particular, I think that the public would be better served by a peace that used some other mechanism to allow artists to be compensated for publishing. Hopefully, artists would be at least as well off as they are now. Those who only publish without creating may well lose out - but the internet has made what they contribute so cheap and easy that anyone can do it. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15020.28993.192354.986367>