[Gllug] Regarding priracy (sic)

[Rev Simon Rumble]

On Wed 05 Mar, Doug Winter bloviated thus:

> I think the anti-copyright mob would assert that it isn't "your" music,
> you merely created it.  The claim that creation engenders ownership is
> the crux of the moral case for copyright.  That has as many problems as
> theories of ownership in meatspace.

Not at all.  The original intent of copyright law (along with patent
law) was to coax creators to put their works out in the wild, rather
than rely on secrecy, copy protection ("you can read this book, but
only by coming to our reading room and paying a fee") and other means
to protect their work.

By giving the creator a limited term during which they can
commercially exploit the work, and be protected from others exploiting
it, the public domain would be enhanced, so the theory goes.  In other
words, the world is a better place because Alice in Wonderland was
published as a book.

If creative works were the same as property (i.e., with ownership
rather than rights), you would be able to inherit ownership of the
works of your grandfather and in turn pass them on to your children.
Copyright has an expiry specifically so this cannot happen.

-- 
Rev Simon Rumble <simon at rumble.net>
www.rumble.net
Send email with subject "send key pub" for public key.

 "When bankers get together for dinner they discuss art, when artists
  get together for dinner they discuss money."
- Oscar Wilde
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20030305/5e4022a0/attachment.pgp>