August 18, 2008Re: The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)
Posted in reply to Adam D. Ruppe
"Adam D. Ruppe" <email@example.com> wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:23:44AM +0100, Jb wrote: > >> I do think you overstate what copyright actualy does. It doesnt prevent >> sharing of ideas and information. It just prevent copying of (usualy) >> artistic works. > > The bits that make up that artistic work is information! > > If I take a screenshot of a computer program, that is considered copyright > infringement (in the US anyway, as I understand it. Disclaimer: I'm no > lawyer, > so I might be wrong, but I don't think so.) If i remember correctly this came up when someone got a pre release screen shot of one of the new versiosn of MacOS, they published this online. And Apple decided to sue them for breach of copyright as they wanted to keep it secret untill the big unveiling. Breach of copyright was the only avenue open to them iirc, and i dont know how it turned out but the point is moot. That is an absurd abuse of copyright. It is not the norm. So yes current copyright laws do sometimes produce undesirable results. And they are not perfect. And I agree that fair use should be expanded, and copyright lengths reduced. >> Actualy without copyright the chances of finding that library would be >> greatly diminished. For a start if people want to they can already create >> software and release with no restrictions. This option already exists. > > Yes, indeed, and many people do (or something very close to no > restrictions, > like the licenses in Phobos). > > And there's an interesting question: why do people write software with > few restrictions now, when they could possibly make more money off > keeping it restricted? If copyright didn't exist, would those reasons > suddenly disappear? I say no: This is my point. Those people who want to can already work with free and open licences. Disolving copyright wont change that. >> So the idea that art / software production would flourish without >> copyright >> is plain false, it's so false it's almost absurd. > > How then do you explain the wealth of art that was created before > copyright > was around? Or the vast amounts of free (or close to free) software on the > Web now? It's not that art or software would not be produced if we disolved copyright. It's that far far less of it would. The amount of art produced prior to the 20th centuary is miniscule compared to what was produced during it. There have been millions of songs, books, and films that have made in the last 100 years. If you compared that to what was made in just one of the centurarys of the Renaisence it would be like comparing mountain to a mole hill. The simple fact is that the "patronage" system that was in use before hand is incredibly inneficient. It just doesnt work that well. And your supposed ideas of how it could work just emphasise the point. The problem is that getting a 100 people together, and getting them to agree on what they want, and how much they will pay, and then finding someone who will do the work, is just absurd. You are insane if you think that system will be more efficient and more productive than the current copyright / capatilist one. Free market, and free trade, will always batter such a system into the ground. It's why you see very little art comming out of Comunist countrys in comparison to capatilist ones. It's why capalism works. It's pragmatic rather than idealistic.