13 Feb
2013
13 Feb
'13
12:35 a.m.
On Tuesday 12 February 2013 18:08:36 Al Thompson wrote:
all the best,
drew
On 02/12/2013 10:12 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
Untrue.
1. He gets a copyright whether he wants one or not. He is forced to have one
and he must make an effort to counteract this.
If copyright only existed when applied for and registered, it would not be
nearly as nasty.
2. A person can lawfully force a song writer to license his work to him for a
cover. He cannot refuse. (At least in some places. Do we have any laws that
force a person to let a member of the public use his car?)
As for your question, as to how will people make
a living who do IP only?
Consider an analogy which is brought up often.
Say, there is a culture where women are being forced to marry men that
their
family chooses. As you know, in many countries around the world in the
past
this was standard stuff.
And now imagine someone saying that this is wrong and brings in his
argumentation.
And someone says - well, then how will my sister get married?
Or if you are against slavery, someone will tell you - well, then how
will the work
in this country be done if there are no slaves? Who will want to do it?
The real question is - I don't know. All I know is that forced
marriage/slavery/copyright are wrong and here are
my arguments.
I don't see a problem with that position.
The difference is that in your marriage example, and in slavery, the
person is forced against his will to comply. The woman is forced into
it, the slave is also forced.
Work will get done when those who need the work will pay a reasonable wage.
Women will get married when they find someone to whom they are attracted
and who is attracted to them.
A composer is not forced. He can choose how to release his works. He
can copyright them and expect to profit from any sales, or he can
release into the public domain and expect nothing. Or, he can release
using one of the alternate licensing schemes and hope that people will
compensate him for his property.
You always assume copyright law to justify copyright law and how the world
works. You need to image no copyright law and describe how things would
naturally work. (Well, you obviously don't have to but if you only argue A is
right because we have a law that lets us do A, you are not going to convince
many whoe think A may not be right in the first place.
It's not too unlike a guy who pays for materials and training, and then
builds a house. In deciding what to do with his house, he can:
1) charge people $500/month to live in it
2) let people live in it for free
3) tell people that they can live in it and give him some money if they
want to and can afford it
It is completely different. You want the person to be able to prevent another
person from buying his own materials and piece of land and build a copy of
the the house.
As pointed out on my site, producing IP is
necessary. How will people
get paid?
In various different ways. Just like they get paid now. In Russia
copyright law is
not enforced that much, yet Russia has scientists, composers, actors
and movie directors.
So they must be getting paid somehow.
How much of this is still state-sponsored in Russia?