30 Jun
2010
30 Jun
'10
3:31 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Dave!
Your argument seems very-very convincing. But is it really?
"Yeh, yeh, yeh, artists made art before copyright. What they didn't make was
as much money as they now stand to make because of it."
So why not make up a law that, for instance, that allows bus drivers to make
more money? Like, make using your car illegal. And if you are a bus driver,
you would also say - "if you'd own a bus, you'd support that law, since
before I did not get that much money, now I have great income". So what? Do
bus drivers need more money? Do musicians need more money? Why? Why only
musicians then? Why not teachers? Why not make up a law to increase income
of washing ladies by making washing machines illegal?
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.