13 Feb
2013
13 Feb
'13
4:30 p.m.
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 04:28:45 Al Thompson wrote:
On 02/13/2013 01:45 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
One would presumably not release the work to the public until one had gotten a
fair return on one's labour. Onbe would then have been paid fairly for one's
efforts without trying to exert unnatural control over the lives of others.
Without having to snoop into the actions of others to ensure that they were
complying with one's dictates.
Or, one would give away one's work as a gift or to further a casue one
believed in.
That seems morally superior.
all the best,
drew
"Anyway, if his point is that property
theory doesn't
govern intellectual creation, then why does he seem to say that
property theory
should rule out any and all protection for one's intellectual work?"
Because copyright ends up invading actual physical property.
You ask - what is copyright? It is a legislative method to invade
other people's
property without their consent. Just by writing something, I instantly
get a
partial ownership of your body (you cannot perform my writing in public
without my permission), partial ownership of your pen, paper, computer
and printer (you cannot distribute my writing without my permission).
And you did not agree to any of this.
I don't agree with this. Primarily because if you write something, you
aren't FORCING ANYONE to listen to it. Conversely though, if there were
no copyrights, then by the mere act of writing and releasing something,
you would be giving the rights to your life/time/labor to anyone who
cared to listen (or cared to copy).
How is that morally superior?