t_w_ at freenet.de
Wed Nov 16 09:41:40 UTC 2011
On 11/16/2011 09:53 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
> 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).
The concept of property just is artificial in general.
It wouldn't be "necessary" if humans wouldn't have this tendency to be
selfish and greedy.
As things are, the purpose is protection of investment of time and
effort and scarce resources. Respecting property is part of an agreement
to avoid chaos and war.
Everything that can be expressed digitally is not scarce, once copied
and distributed. But the know-how, time and effort required to producing
it, is, and that's what's to be respected and protected.
In a capitalistic society, it should be possible to earn money by
investing your time and effort in producing things people need/want.
People being paid for their time and effort directly may be preferable.
There's still a need/use for copyright to protect the outcome, to allow
the investment to be made beforehand. This way, payment can depend on
the quality of the outcome.
Oh, and in a funny twist, the GPL and similar licenses provide a reason
for copyright on immaterial goods, as they have well founded objectives
and copyright is the legal mechanism they rely on to be enforceable.
thorwil's design for free software:
More information about the Linux-audio-dev