linuxaudio.org

--0016e6da17605d34ae048a3f746d

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
>

quoted text
> for the same precise reason that "copying is not theft"

>

> any single one of the measures you've cited removes the ability of the

> socially-agreed upon owner of an object, or holder of a job, to use

> what they "own" as they see fit (the teacher angle is a bit of a wierd

> case in your argument, but it doesn't break entirely).

>

> however, in the case of a creative work, the work's life begins at

> some point (or period) in time when its creator decides that s/he

> wants others to see/hear/touch/smell it. it doesn't take anything away

> from anyone to say *at that point* in time "the creator decides who

> can make a copy of this".

>

> making cars illegal to help bus drivers hurts car owners. making

> washing machines illegal to help washing ladies hurts owners of

> washing machines. placing limits on the ability to copy someone else's

> work hurts no-one if those limits are sensible.

>

Yes, this is actually the core of all copyright discussions, namely - can

ideas be property?

I think ideas cannot be property and I show why I think so here:

http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=authorship&a=auth...
I also do not believe an author has any right to control what he has created

in the general case.

And because I think so, I do not agree that placing limits on the ability

to copy does not hurt anyone. It does hurt everyone - because the ability

to copy is so easy to execute. And such limitations on ideas become

draconian limitations, they always

tend to increase.
The allegories with cars and buses are bad, like any allegories, but they

did show my point, I believe.
--

Louigi Verona

http://www.louigiverona.ru/
--0016e6da17605d34ae048a3f746d

Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Paul Da=

vis <pau=

l@linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
for the same precise reason that "copying is not theft"
any single one of the measures you've cited removes the ability of the<=

br>

socially-agreed upon owner of an object, or holder of a job, to use

what they "own" as they see fit (the teacher angle is a bit of a =

wierd

case in your argument, but it doesn't break entirely).
however, in the case of a creative work, the work's life begins at

some point (or period) in time when its creator decides that s/he

wants others to see/hear/touch/smell it. it doesn't take anything away<=

br>

from anyone to say *at that point* in time "the creator decides who

can make a copy of this".
making cars illegal to help bus drivers hurts car owners. making

washing machines illegal to help washing ladies hurts owners of

washing machines. placing limits on the ability to copy someone else's<=

br>

work hurts no-one if those limits are sensible.

Yes, this is actually the core of all copyright =

discussions, namely - can ideas be property?I think ideas cannot be pro=

perty and I show why I think so here:http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=3Dprojects&s=3Dwritings&amp=

;t=3Dauthorship&a=3Dauthorship_property

I also do not believe an author has any right to control what he has cr=

eated in the general case.And because I think so, I do not agree that p=

lacing limits on the abilityto copy does not hurt anyone. It does hurt =

everyone - because the ability

to copy is so easy to execute. And such limitations on ideas become draconi=

an limitations, they alwaystend to increase.The allegories with=

 cars and buses are bad, like any allegories, but they did show my point, I=

 believe.

-- Louigi Veronahttp://=

www.louigiverona.ru/
--0016e6da17605d34ae048a3f746d--