Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such

drew Roberts <zotz@...> writes: A misunderstanding here: I disagree both with copyright in its present form AND with the libertarian arguments against copyright. I had stated previously that I am not a fan of copyright, so I don't understand why you're answering my post as if I were defending copyright. I want to put copyright and contracts aside for a minute, and say something about the ethics. (Law is a reflection of a society's ethics -- an imperfect reflection, but still a reflection.) If you create an intellectual product, and I want to do something with it -- distribute it, or create a new work based on the original -- common decency calls for me to *ask permission*. To do it anyway without asking is rude or disrespectful, maybe even dishonest. Turning the pronouns around, if I make a bangin' dance track in SuperCollider, and you email me to say you love it and you want to remix it, I'd be thrilled. I'll even help you out -- I'll give you stems that I didn't release publicly. I bet a lot of musicians feel the same. But if I hear about your remix after the fact... I might like the remix, but I'll also feel peeved that you just appropriated my work without so much as a "good morning." Depending on how you're releasing it, my reaction may range between mildly irritated and furious, the latter especially if I release with a CC-BY-SA and you don't share alike. This is my #1 beef with the libertarian point of view. Libertarians seem to be saying that the rude bastard is fully justified in being a rude bastard, AND that the law should protect his rude bastard-ness. And the original author, who was rudely bastardized? Tough. They have declared, more or less a priori, that material possession trumps all other considerations. Since the intellectual product is not a material possession, the author has no recourse. Further, she SHOULD have no recourse because any recourse is an "invasion" of the rude bastard's property. Thus we have an ethic that celebrates dishonorable behavior as an expression of the ideal of free use of one's material resources, and disempowers someone who has done honest, hard work. I choose not to endorse this ethic, and I'm afraid that the discussion cannot progress as long as the primacy of material possession is non-negotiable. One of my problems with copyright is that the companies that enforce copyright have no incentive to grant permission for derivative works. So, either nobody makes derivative works (no fun) or people don't ask permission, which is ethically dodgy. That's one reason why I don't enforce copyright on my own works, but I do license as CC-BY-SA. (I used to add NC "non-commercial" to that, but realized that it doesn't bother me if my work is used in a project that is sold for money *as long as* it is also share-alike, i.e., permitting derivative works.) So, a question on my mind is, what mechanisms could the law use to discourage people from being jerks and copying without asking? I don't have an answer, but it seems to me that it's a more productive line of thought than paranoid language of "invasion" and even, at one point, truly silly speculation about the death penalty for copyright violators. I fail to see how any of that furthers the discussion in any way, and I intend to ignore those portions of Louigi and Drew's future posts that indulge in such (and I hope others follow suit). hjh