[LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups

Paul Davis paul at linuxaudiosystems.com
Wed Jun 30 13:31:41 UTC 2010


On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona at 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.


More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list