13 Feb
2013
13 Feb
'13
7:33 p.m.
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 11:46 -0500, Al Thompson wrote:
On 02/13/2013 04:35 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
In German I often say something similar to: I don't like laws, they are
useless and only protect the evil, but something like the road traffic
act are commandments of sanity. I can't formulate it very good in
English, but perhaps you can imagine what I try to say.
True. You are not forcing anyone. However, when
you release
something into the public, copyright sort of makes everyone agree
to the contract with you even if they don't want it.
How you can hear something or see something even if you did not
aim to do that, I listed in my response to Michael above.
Kinsella has a whole chapter about copyright as a contract.
To make clear, I am NOT against contracts. If you give me a book
under a contract, it is morally correct to abide by the contract.
Question is, can this duplicate a sort of copyright regime? Kinsella
argues that no. I argue the same. It is practically almost impossible.
One person violates the contract and the closed club of
contract agreements is compromised.
So, when you need more money, do you fire up your color copier and run
some off??
You have not agreed to a contract to not do so have you. What is
different? The money may not be "copyrighted" in the same sense as "a
song," but the principle is the same, according to your logic.