Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/29/2010 4:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > "It will be unprofitable > > THAT'S AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY > > No, it's not. There is no public policy that it must > be possible to profit in certain fields of endeavor.
Uh stupid Hyman... http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZO.html#FN18 See also: http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/02/whats-point-of-copyright.html "What I mean is that the purpose of copyright is (as Yglesias says) to encourage creation of works -- by (as Bunch says) "protect[ing] the intellectual property created by artists so they are rewarded for their efforts." But what's important isn't what I think; what really matters is what Justice Ginsburg, joined by six other members of the Supreme Court, said in footnote 18 of Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) about this very subject: Justice Stevens characterization of reward to the author as a secondary consideration of copyright law, post, at 6, n. 4 (internal quotation marks omitted), understates the relationship between such rewards and the Progress of Science. As we have explained, [t]he economic philosophy behind the [Copyright] [C]lause is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors. Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 219 (1954). Accordingly, copyright law celebrates the profit motive, recognizing that the incentive to profit from the exploitation of copyrights will redound to the public benefit by resulting in the proliferation of knowledge . The profit motive is the engine that ensures the progress of science. American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc., 802 F. Supp. 1, 27 (SDNY 1992), affd, 60 F.3d 913 (CA2 1994). Rewarding authors for their creative labor and promot[ing] Progress are thus complementary; as James Madison observed, in copyright [t]he public good fully coincides with the claims of individuals. The Federalist No. 43, p. 272 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). Justice Breyers assertion that copyright statutes must serve public, not private, ends post, at 6, similarly misses the mark. The two ends are not mutually exclusive; copyright law serves public ends by providing individuals with an incentive to pursue private ones. " regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss