|
|
Posted by J. Clarke on 12/06/06 21:00
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 11:56:03 -0800, PTravel wrote:
> "Bill" <trash@christian-horizons.org> wrote in message
> news:ur-dnaVkSMpzhurYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@golden.net...
>> Actually, I thought you said that you didn't think any copyright owner
>> ever benefitted from copyright infringement. I think I read that twice,
>> carefully, but if I am mistaken, pardon me.
>
> I didn't say anthing like that. I said availability of copyright isn't
> predicated upon harm to the owner, exclusive rights means just that, and
> changing it would require an amendment to the Constitution.
Consider the GNU copyleft, in which copyright law is applied to ensure
that the software is available freely both as in "free beer" and as in
"free speech". Kind of difficult to demonstrate "harm to the owner" when
he gives it away for free, but if someone else tries to use his code in a
way that restricts access then he'll use that copyright to beat the crap
out of them.
>> PTravel wrote:
>>> "Bill" <trash@christian-horizons.org> wrote in message
>>> news:lN6dnSQ0lM3BT-vYnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@golden.net...
>>>
>>>>Does everyone forget that The Grateful Dead actually encouraged people
>>>>to tape their concerts?
>>>
>>>
>>> What has that to do with this discussion?
>>>
>>>
>>>>So... were they stupid? Did they lose a lot of money? Did they go
>>>>broke because nobody wanted to buy their recordings any more?
>>>
>>>
>>> No. What has that to do with this discussion?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>If what most posters here said here was true, that should absolutely
>>>>have been the case.
>>>
>>>
>>> I haven't seen any discussion in this thread about the economic
>>> effects of non-enforcement of copyright.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|