"pjfjacks" <pjfjacks@email-addr-hidden>:
> 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.
Received on Sun Feb 26 20:18:48 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 26 2006 - 20:18:48 EET