Re: [LAD] RAUL?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: gene heskett <gheskett@...>
Cc: <linux-audio-dev@...>
Date: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - 8:53 am

--14dae9399db1f20f1004b1d63cb7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hey!
I agree with most of the things you say. So all I have to do is just make my
point a little bit more clear.

GPL is necessary in the world of copyright. It is, thus, founded in this
sense.
The copyright claim in itself - that ideas can be property - is unfounded.

The general claim - that implementations of ideas can be property - is,
in my view, also unfounded when the implementation itself is just a
collection of ideas, or, putting it more broadly, *when the implementation
is an immaterial object*.
The concept of property, made towards anything immaterial, makes little
sense and is always found on some artificial unnecessary grounds, whereas
property of physical objects is a concept based on necessary grounds - the
scarcity of physical objects (and thus the need for individual control of
those objects).

An idea of a chair is implemented in a physical object. The concept of
property
is applicable to the physical implementation of a physical object.

An ideas of an author are implemented in a physical book and that physical
book can be property.
But when the book becomes a file, the file stops being a physical object, to
which the concept of property can be applied.
Strictly speaking, a file is still a physical object, but it is so small
and so cheap
to duplicate, that it can effectively be considered as non-scarce.

But usually people get convinced fairly easy that copyright is an
artificial limitation.
So any copyright/IP discussion really comes down to speaking about how
copyright as an artificial limitation can be founded. To put it simply: *why
does one
think copyright is needed?*

The only argument I hear is that without copyright people will not do
creative work.
And this argument is weak on many points, not to mention that it is has
little
empirical evidence.

The opposite though - that creativity will flourish without copyright - has
a vast amount
of empirical evidence.

Just to prevent some rightful criticism - it is true that demolition of
copyright law might
decrease creativity on part of those people, who were motivated in a very
specific way.
However, I would argue that it will in turn increase creativity on part of
those people,
who were de-motivated by copyright law, and my argument would be that the
amount
of those people is much larger and that their output would be much more
valuable.

--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/

--14dae9399db1f20f1004b1d63cb7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hey!I agree with most of the things you say. So all I have to do is jus=
t make mypoint a little bit more clear.GPL is necessary in the =
world of copyright. It is, thus, founded in this sense.The copyright cl=
aim in itself - that ideas can be property - is unfounded.
The general claim - that implementations of ideas can be property - is,=
in my view, also unfounded when the implementation itself is just a=
collection of ideas, or, putting it more broadly, when the implementatio=
n
is an immaterial object.The concept of property, made towards anyth=
ing immaterial, makes littlesense and is always found on some artificia=
l unnecessary grounds, whereasproperty of physical objects is a concept=
based on necessary grounds - the
scarcity of physical objects (and thus the need for individual control of t=
hose objects).An idea of a chair is implemented in a physical objec=
t. The concept of propertyis applicable to the physical implementation =
of a physical object.
An ideas of an author are implemented in a physical book and that physi=
calbook can be property.But when the book becomes a file, the file =
stops being a physical object, towhich the concept of property can be a=
pplied.
Strictly speaking, a file is still a physical object, but it is so small an=
d so cheapto duplicate, that it can effectively be considered as non-sc=
arce.But usually people get convinced fairly easy tha=
t copyright is an artificial limitation.
So any copyright/IP discussion really comes down to speaking about howc=
opyright as an artificial limitation can be founded. To put it simply: w=
hy does onethink copyright is needed?The only argument I he=
ar is that without copyright people will not do creative work.
And this argument is weak on many points, not to mention that it is has lit=
tleempirical evidence.The opposite though - that creativity wil=
l flourish without copyright - has a vast amountof empirical evidence.<=
br>
Just to prevent some rightful criticism - it is true that demolition of=
copyright law mightdecrease creativity on part of those people, who we=
re motivated in a very specific way.However, I would argue that it will=
in turn increase creativity on part of those people,
who were de-motivated by copyright law, and my argument would be that the a=
mountof those people is much larger and that their output would be much=
more valuable.-- Louigi Veronahttp://www.louigiverona.ru/

--14dae9399db1f20f1004b1d63cb7--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAD] RAUL?, Iain Duncan, (Mon Nov 14, 6:58 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, David Robillard, (Mon Nov 14, 4:33 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Harry van Haaren, (Mon Nov 14, 10:11 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, David Robillard, (Mon Nov 14, 4:38 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Harry van Haaren, (Tue Nov 15, 2:10 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Tristan Matthews, (Tue Nov 15, 3:19 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Harry van Haaren, (Tue Nov 15, 12:41 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, gene heskett, (Tue Nov 15, 4:20 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Fons Adriaensen, (Tue Nov 15, 8:42 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, gene heskett, (Wed Nov 16, 12:48 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 6:15 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Fons Adriaensen, (Wed Nov 16, 10:38 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 10:40 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Fons Adriaensen, (Wed Nov 16, 11:16 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Pedro Alves, (Wed Nov 16, 1:28 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 11:29 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Fons Adriaensen, (Wed Nov 16, 11:42 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 11:47 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Fons Adriaensen, (Wed Nov 16, 2:14 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 2:27 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 10:47 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, gene heskett, (Wed Nov 16, 8:33 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Iain Duncan, (Wed Nov 16, 7:08 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Iain Duncan, (Wed Nov 16, 7:22 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 8:53 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Thorsten Wilms, (Wed Nov 16, 9:43 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 9:57 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, David Olofson, (Wed Nov 16, 12:59 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 1:32 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, David Olofson, (Wed Nov 16, 2:47 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, hermann, (Wed Nov 16, 6:31 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 6:41 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Dominique Michel, (Thu Nov 17, 1:11 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Thu Nov 17, 4:44 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, thijs van severen, (Fri Nov 18, 6:47 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Thorsten Wilms, (Wed Nov 16, 10:35 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Dominique Michel, (Wed Nov 16, 5:58 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Thorsten Wilms, (Wed Nov 16, 8:29 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Tristan Matthews, (Wed Nov 16, 7:15 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Iain Duncan, (Tue Nov 15, 2:57 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Iain Duncan, (Mon Nov 14, 6:12 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Paul Davis, (Mon Nov 14, 6:28 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Iain Duncan, (Mon Nov 14, 6:45 pm)