On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 03:10:07AM +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote: > Suppose you know someone who has been working for years on a novel. > But he lacks confidence in his work and he's never shown it to anyone. > Finally you persuade him to let you look at a copy of his manuscript, > but he makes you promise not to show any of it to anyone else. > > [...]
I agree with the Anonymous posters analysis. I would further elaborate with regard to current copyright related laws: - parties are free to enter into NDA or complex distribution and use contracts surrounding exchange of content or information generally as anonymous describes, and this is good and non-coercive - but that private contract places no burden on other parties if that agreement is broken and the content distributed anyway. This is exactly analogous to the trade secret scenario where once the trade secret is out, it's tough luck for the previous trade secret owner -- clearly it's no longer a secret. - where I find current copyright laws at odds with a coercion free society is in placing restrictions on people who did not agree to any NDA contract. ie. There are laws which forbid copying or use of information by people who never entered into any agreement with the copyright holder, but obtained their copy from a third party. - in a free society (one without a force monopoly central government) I don't think copyright would exist -- voluntary agreements -- NDAs of the form anonymous describes -- would be the only type of contract. - the only form of generally sanctioned force would be in response to violence initiated upon oneself. - if the media cartels chose to hire their own thugs to threaten violence to people who did not follow the cartels ideas about binding people to default contracts they did not voluntarily enter into, that would be quite analogous to the current situation where the media cartels are lobbying government to increase the level of the threats of violence, and make more onerous the terms of the non-voluntary contracts. (Also in a free society individuals would be able to employ the services of security firms protection services to defend themselves from the media cartels thugs, as the media cartels would not have the benefit of a force monopoly they have the lobbying power to bribe to obtain enforcement subsidies). Adam
