I agree, I should be able to create my own $100 bills. After all, I own the paper and the green ink. :) I do see your point though but there surely would be a lot fewer authors in the world without copyright. I still think it's a good thing in general. I guess that means I believe the writer should own their work. They should have the power to give it away or limit it. Personally, I usually choose to give my creativity away. It's one of the many reasons I'm not a billionaire. :) If nothing else it's an easy way to identify the generous and the greedy. One thing you can be certain of, copyright is not going away in our lifetime.Jenda wrote:You still assume the writer owns a work. He owns the paper it's on. But how can he own the _way_ the ink is arranged on the paper?
One more way to say why I like it...
i assume nothing of the sort. my choice of output is my creation. I can, should and will decide how this output should be used. By suggesting otherwise you threaten a basic civil right.Jenda wrote:You still assume the writer owns a work.
that's 100% bull hockey end of story. That statement is too simple minded for me to confidently engage you in discussion over.He owns the paper it's on. But how can he own the _way_ the ink is arranged on the paper?
if i tried to explain the concept of space travel to someone from, say, 2000 years ago, i bet i wouldn't be too successful. This is no reflection on the people back then, as they were physically and genetically the same as us, however i am trying to point out that those of you who think the "natural" state (whatever you imagine that to be) is the "right" state are sorely mistaken. If you want us to go back to a time before rights were protected, when the weak were left to die and only the strong or the ingenious survived, then i must disagree with you in the most fundamental way. I disagree totally with your totalitarian and mercenary attitude.In fact, it's hardly definable as ownership - that's why we have copyright (you don't own a song, you hold the copyright to it).
You assume the current state is the natural state - but it's not true, really.
i find your argument personally offensive as well as offensive on principle. you appear to be justifying the selfish money grabbing ethos of corporations like sony and microsoft. You propose that the individual authors should have no protection against an organisation that chooses to exploit the work of those authors.The natural state is that one can use information in any way one wants. Now one is limited by the wishes of the person who claims to have created the information. (Much like the natural state of physical ownership is a hunter/gatherer one. What I find is mine...)
Have you ever heard about those recording groups from the fifties and early sixties who were conned into accepting a flat fee for a recording, and then the record companies subsequently collect all the royalties on that recording for the rest of time? the profits from this can run into millions for the record companies concerned, while the artistes are left to fend for themselves, sometimes to literally die in poverty. Given what you have said here, it looks to me like you would be in favour of the record companies keeping the money and against the artistes collecting the royalties that any civilised person would agree is fairly and rightly theirs. If this is the case then our attitudes are so different that there is no further point me discussing this with you any further.
