«

In message <>, impossible wrote:

> "Peter" <> wrote in message
> news:1184267991.330396@ftpsrv1...
>> impossible wrote:
>>
>>> When I say that freedom is a "zero-sum game," I'm referring specifically
>>> to those freedoms associated with property ownership.
>>
>> This works fine for tangible property, but not for intangible things like
>> ideas, knowledge and methods. Freedom to use an idea doesn't deprive
>> anyone else of the freedom to use it.
>
> What do you mean when say "use an idea". Think about it? Study it in
> school? Toss it around in your R&D lab. No, of course not. And all
> copyrighted materials and patents are freely available to the public for
> just this purpose. But if you're saying that anyone ought to be able to
> free ride off the creative work of anyone else and profit unconditionally
> from their labor, then I don't see how you can make a distinction between
> that sort of "free" expropriation and the kind that involves walking off
> with someone's tangible goods.

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an
idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it
to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the
possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of
it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less,
because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea
from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who
lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Have a read starting here
<http://techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml> to disabuse yourself
of the notion that making copies of copyrighted material must necessarily
amount to a rip-off.

"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
news:f77dee$dg9$...
> In message <>, impossible
> wrote:
>
<snip>

> Have a read starting here
> <http://techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml> to disabuse yourself
> of the notion that making copies of copyrighted material must necessarily
> amount to a rip-off.

Ok I read the article - now I suggest you read it too. Mike Masnick does not
say making copies of copyrighted materials is ok. I fact he say you should
not break copyright.

What he does promote is the use of business marketing models whereby
infinite (non-scarce) resources are better sold as free, and that the
creator would be better-off making money off the related scarce
side-resources. I think his reasoning is naive and superficial. He has
deliberately chosen his product abstraction model to focus purely on the
physical production side of creative works. If he had more honestly focussed
on the actual creativity production side, he would have realised that that
part is the scarce resource, and will never be infinite, no matter what the
physical means of distribution is.
This scarce creativity resouce will continue to be successfully and
naturally marketed via non-free copyright mechanisms.

Another clearer way of seeing this is to look at what would happen if
creativity were to be disconnected from reward. The result would be a
decline in creativity - it's a natural unbreakable feed-back system that
Mike Masnick's polemic won't change.

PC

In message <4698222a$>, Cadae wrote:

> Another clearer way of seeing this is to look at what would happen if
> creativity were to be disconnected from reward. The result would be a
> decline in creativity - it's a natural unbreakable feed-back system that
> Mike Masnick's polemic won't change.

Bingo--you have exactly described the situation with current long copyright
terms. Where Cliff Richard could still continue to sit back and make money
from a recording he made nearly half a century ago, instead of getting off
his arse and doing some new work.

Whereas in a system where ongoing reward is more closely linked to ongoing
work, instead of depending so heavily on royalties from old work, you would
have much greater incentives towards creativity.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> Bingo--you have exactly described the situation with current long copyright
> terms. Where Cliff Richard could still continue to sit back and make money
> from a recording he made nearly half a century ago, instead of getting off
> his arse and doing some new work.
>

And Cliff knew the rules of the game when he made the recording. In any
case he is a major exception, it is only a minority of artists who
retain such intellectual property, usually record companies make a one
shot payment to the artist and keep all the rights. In any case it is
rare that that a recording continues to be of interest after such a long
period.

Law Lord Mansfield discussed the pro's and con's of limited period v
indefinite copyright in the London case of Millar v Taylor. The date -
1769, so nothing is new.

In article <4698222a$>, "Cadae" <> wrote:
(snip)

>Another clearer way of seeing this is to look at what would happen if
>creativity were to be disconnected from reward. The result would be a
>decline in creativity - it's a natural unbreakable feed-back system that
>Mike Masnick's polemic won't change.

Absolutely disagree. Creativity is not in any way stifled by not being
rewarded. In fact, you could make an excellent case that you can
significantly disadvantage it and it will still happen. Artists in garrets
spring immediately to mind.
Many people make or build things and/or create (ideas, performances etc)
as a hobby (ie for fun). I suspect that creativity is simply part of being
human.

"Bruce Sinclair" < > wrote
in message news:f7eebn$uju$...
> In article <4698222a$>, "Cadae" <> wrote:
> (snip)
>
> Absolutely disagree. Creativity is not in any way stifled by not being
> rewarded. In fact, you could make an excellent case that you can
> significantly disadvantage it and it will still happen. Artists in garrets
> spring immediately to mind.
> Many people make or build things and/or create (ideas, performances etc)
> as a hobby (ie for fun). I suspect that creativity is simply part of being
> human.
>

That ignores reality - creative people have to eat. If their creativity
isn't rewarded, then they may have to waste their creative time on floor
sweeping and burger flipping.

PC

"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
news:f79lnr$etr$...
> Bingo--you have exactly described the situation with current long
> copyright
> terms. Where Cliff Richard could still continue to sit back and make money
> from a recording he made nearly half a century ago, instead of getting off
> his arse and doing some new work.
>
> Whereas in a system where ongoing reward is more closely linked to ongoing
> work, instead of depending so heavily on royalties from old work, you
> would
> have much greater incentives towards creativity.

Cliff Richard has created music that continues to be popular today. He has
and continues to be appropriately rewarded for work that has lasted the
distance. Your proposal of limiting reward would lumber the world with
short-live flavour-of-the month junk.

No thanks.

PC

In article <46a8661f$>, "Cadae" <> wrote:
>
> ... Your proposal of limiting reward would lumber the world with
>short-live flavour-of-the month junk.

.... but the airwaves and CD bins are full of exactly that now, as the record
companies chase short-term profit, spending on massive marketing campaigns
instead of nurturing talent.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
"New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
-- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286

In message <46a8661f$>, Cadae wrote:

> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
> news:f79lnr$etr$...
>
>> Bingo--you have exactly described the situation with current long
>> copyright terms. Where Cliff Richard could still continue to sit back and
>> make money from a recording he made nearly half a century ago, instead of
>> getting off his arse and doing some new work.
>>
>> Whereas in a system where ongoing reward is more closely linked to
>> ongoing work, instead of depending so heavily on royalties from old work,
>> you would have much greater incentives towards creativity.
>
> Cliff Richard has created music that continues to be popular today. He has
> and continues to be appropriately rewarded for work that has lasted the
> distance. Your proposal of limiting reward would lumber the world with
> short-live flavour-of-the month junk.

How does that argument make sense, exactly? Is it, as long as Cliff
Richard's previous work remains under copyright, he is encouraged to
continue producing important, groundbreak new work? What important,
groundbreaking new work has he produced lately?

Cadae wrote:
>
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
> message news:f79lnr$etr$...
>> Bingo--you have exactly described the situation with current long
>> copyright
>> terms. Where Cliff Richard could still continue to sit back and make
>> money
>> from a recording he made nearly half a century ago, instead of getting
>> off
>> his arse and doing some new work.
>>
>> Whereas in a system where ongoing reward is more closely linked to
>> ongoing
>> work, instead of depending so heavily on royalties from old work, you
>> would
>> have much greater incentives towards creativity.
>
> Cliff Richard has created music that continues to be popular today. He
> has and continues to be appropriately rewarded for work that has lasted
> the distance. Your proposal of limiting reward would lumber the world
> with short-live flavour-of-the month junk.
>
> No thanks.
>
> PC
>
>
What did he write ?