Louigi Verona louigi.verona at gmail.com
Wed Nov 16 08:53:30 UTC 2011

I agree with most of the things you say. So all I have to do is just make my
point a little bit more clear.

GPL is necessary in the world of copyright. It is, thus, founded in this
The copyright claim in itself - that ideas can be property - is unfounded.

The general claim - that implementations of ideas can be property - is,
in my view, also unfounded when the implementation itself is just a
collection of ideas, or, putting it more broadly, *when the implementation
is an immaterial object*.
The concept of property, made towards anything immaterial, makes little
sense and is always found on some artificial unnecessary grounds, whereas
property of physical objects is a concept based on necessary grounds - the
scarcity of physical objects (and thus the need for individual control of
those objects).

An idea of a chair is implemented in a physical object. The concept of
is applicable to the physical implementation of a physical object.

An ideas of an author are implemented in a physical book and that physical
book can be property.
But when the book becomes a file, the file stops being a physical object, to
which the concept of property can be applied.
Strictly speaking, a file is still a physical object, but it is so small
and so cheap
to duplicate, that it can effectively be considered as non-scarce.

But usually people get convinced fairly easy that copyright is an
artificial limitation.
So any copyright/IP discussion really comes down to speaking about how
copyright as an artificial limitation can be founded. To put it simply: *why
does one
think copyright is needed?*

The only argument I hear is that without copyright people will not do
creative work.
And this argument is weak on many points, not to mention that it is has
empirical evidence.

The opposite though - that creativity will flourish without copyright - has
a vast amount
of empirical evidence.

Just to prevent some rightful criticism - it is true that demolition of
copyright law might
decrease creativity on part of those people, who were motivated in a very
specific way.
However, I would argue that it will in turn increase creativity on part of
those people,
who were de-motivated by copyright law, and my argument would be that the
of those people is much larger and that their output would be much more

Louigi Verona
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-dev/attachments/20111116/20bdbeb5/attachment.html>

More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list