On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Paul Davis <paul@email-addr-hiddenwrote:
>
> 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
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. 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@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Wed Jun 30 20:15:03 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 30 2010 - 20:15:03 EEST