An interesting view, but I like to put it another way:
Copyright is an exchange between the society and the creator. The society grants a time-limited protection in return for full rights to the creation at the end of the protection. However, with today's copyright lengths, the creators are getting all the protection (copyright is for the life of the creator + 70 years), and never having to pay for it. The way I see it, if the society doesn't get the creation, the creators should have to pay for the protection. The BSA should have to foot the bill for those US Marshall who raid companies, etc.
Jefferson's letter to MacPherson is a great rebuttle for anyone who argues for "natural" IP laws.
However, we are fighting a *very* uphill battle. I read the bill that made music recording for studios "work for hire", and it was in a bill that had nothing to do with music. However, the topic of the bill was digital satellite TV, and the wording of the introduction was basically concerning helping out the companies involved, with no mention of helping citizens or society. Lawmakers aren't even concerned with trying to blow smoke about it. They work for companies, "moral persons", and not for you or me.
To get back to the topic: I wouldn't mind proprietary software at all (I still wouldn't use it much), if it weren't for unjustifiably long copyrights, and ridiculous patents. The three of those together is like valium + alcohol + dynamite.
--jeremy
Von Fugal wrote:
* Michael Halcrow [Fri, 25 Mar 2005 at 11:22 -0600] <snip summary="extreme take on right to copy"/>
Thanks to Michael for keeping the representing the otherwise unrepresented extremes. Really, thanks, you keep us thinking.
You might say that the artist already has millions of dollars, butI could give a rat's ass about your economic construct. I am telling
again, it is not your place to put a cap on what he can earn. You
might say that you shouldn't be restricted to share that mp3 with
your friends, but by allowing you to do so you are hindering that
artist's business (yes, potential sales constitute the basis of
commerce).
you that I have a right to copy. You need to be making an effective
argument as to why I should relinquish that right for the good of the
economy.
This is a very valid point. As has been mentioned, the government "spends" the public's rights to further public good. The spending of these rights buys creators profit. So why shouldn't we put a cap on how much of profit creators can buy with our rights? That's not to say put a dollar cap on it. The framers of the constitution deliberated much over the copyright issue. They were very wary about spending rights, but saw a need to encourage creativity. Thus they provisioned a means for government to spend some rights to buy creativity. This spending was limited. Today, unfortunately, this spending is virtually unlimited. This is the biggest beef I have with copyright laws of the day. They no longer focus on benefiting society but rather benefiting creators to the highest possible degree. And what's worse, todays society accepts this new paradigm, if only because everyone has been indoctrinated that 'copying is wrong.'
I would also point out that we need not relinquish any right for the
good of the _economy_. I could give a rat's toe jam for the economy.
This is a free market, the economy more or less takes care of itself,
the more free the better. The question that needs to be asked when
considering any copyright issue, nay, _any_ issue on law, is "What will
this do for society?" Not "What will this do for the artist/programmer/ research facility/etc?"
Now, whether copyright should be involved in digital technologies is a difficult question at best. At the very least, it should be limited. Chew on this: Imagine a world where companies/individuals can copyright software they produce for X years. They could make money off the product during that time, but would always have to have the next big hit to keep making money. Innovation results and society benefits.
I think copyright fits software as a concept for benefiting society. The problem I see with copyrighting software/digital media is enforceability - a very important aspect in the rule of law that is all too often overlooked. When a law is next to unenforceable the penalty for the few that are caught skyrockets to compensate, and then we hear of an undergraduate[1] who makes a search engine that questionably infringe on someones percieved "property" and financial ruin ensues. People are then afraid to innovate and society does not benefit.
There are many, many things to consider when deliberating on copyright, and all things should be considered in the context of benefiting society. The issue isn't as cut and dry as whether copyright is good or bad.
Von Fugal <- Vote for me!
[1] A story found in Lawrence Lessig's "Free Culture"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/
The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their
author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
--------------------
BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/
The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their
author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
