Mo McRoberts wrote:
On 8-Oct-2009, at 19:35, David Tomlinson wrote:
How about this one: (In no particular order).
[In view of various things]
Why don't we just abolish copyright ?
Being pragmatic, I’d posit that taking such an extremist perspective is
unlikely to achieve what you want. Actually, abolishing copyright would
unlikely to achieve what you want :)
It is my genuine position. Abolishing copyright would achieve exactly
what I want.
Copyright was dreamed up by people I would humbly suggest were smarter
than most (if not all) of us—not to say they’re beyond criticism, but
that I would think long and hard about the ramifications of throwing it
all away for diving into it.
Statue of Anne (1710) was actually censorship.
We have the Hansard speeches, and they were worried about creating a
monopoly as was Jefferson in the USA
The problem, as far as I can see it, isn’t copyright itself, but the
evolved form which grants _extended_ monopolies which persist for
multiple generations. Personally, I’m no great fan of this.
This is the cumulative effect of granting a monopoly, special interests
lobby for it's extention at the cost of the public interest.
Copyright was supposed to create a -temporary- monopoly as an incentive
for the furthering of society’s creative bleeding edge. It’s not an
absolute monopoly (there are things like fair dealings, the right to
time-shift broadcast programmes, and so on). Once it’s no longer
temporary, the ultimate purpose of it is lost. I would argue that an
extended temporary monopoly begins to share some of the same problems
that a permanent one does.
No that is the US constitution, it was a form of censorship.
However, in light of this, we’ve been creative in a different way: we’ve
learned to use copyright as a tool to create anti-monopolies. Things
like the GPL and Creative Commons rely specifically upon copyright’s
functions both to work and to prevent others from subverting their own
purpose. Without copyright, a license such as the GPL, which grants you
permission to redistribute a work _only_ if you adhere to its
conditions, would be void.
You would have to insist on the source code been made available, by the
only reason the GPL need copyright, is because copyright exists !
In a no-copyright world, ignoring the reduced incentive to create works
in the first place (because there are plenty of people who do it purely
for enjoyment), somebody would be free to take your source code, modify
it, compile it, and release the binaries without giving anybody the
option of getting the source of their version: exactly what the GPL
attempts to prevent. Essentially, everything becomes public domain,
whether you like it or not, and it actually ends up being the worst of
both worlds.
Software is a special case with source and object code, we would also
require the source code be provided by law.
The real solution is to redress the balance: bring consumer rights up to
date to more closely match expectations (for example, the fact that it’s
copyright infringement to rip a CD that you bought is way out of step
with modern reality); and restore the temporary nature of the
monopoly—15 years, perhaps? I’m not sure—it needs careful thought.
The real solution is to abolish copyright.
But abolishing it altogether? Irrespective of its merits, by taking a
far-flung stance, you’re more likely to get yourself written off as
being crazy than make real headway in affecting change. Softly softly
catchy monkey :)
Thanks for the advice, but I am deadly serious. As I hope to demonstrate.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
