Re: [LAD] RAUL?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <t_w_@...>
Cc: <linux-audio-dev@...>
Date: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - 9:57 am

--f46d04479615e0f84704b1d7228d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Thanks for replying.
Allow me to comment on a few things.

"The concept of property just is artificial in general."

All ideas and concepts are artificial in a way, however the concepts of
property are based on an inescapable property of things
to be scarce. It has very little to do with selfishness and greed, but more
with organization. Even if everyone is not greedy,
you still have got to outline what part of land are you using and what part
is your neighbour using.
So this is what I mean by saying it is founded on a non-artificial
situation.

"In a capitalistic society, it should be possible to earn money by
investing your time and effort in producing things people need/want. People
being paid for their time and effort directly may be preferable. There's
still a need/use for copyright to protect the outcome, to allow the
investment to be made beforehand. This way, payment can depend on the
quality of the outcome."

So basically what you are saying is that in your view copyright is
something that will motivate people to create things and that without
it people are less likely to do things. And we go back to the same argument
I pointed to earlier.
It is not a bad argument in itself as long as we speak about work for hire.
Culture is a different phenomena which cannot be limited to a collection of
works for hire. This is why I do not believe this argument works when we
speak about culture.

Does it work when we speak about a caste of professional creative people?
It does, definitely. But is the caste of professional creative people so
desirable to society? This is another question we can discuss.

"Oh, and in a funny twist, the GPL and similar licenses provide a reason
for copyright on immaterial goods, as they have well founded objectives and
copyright is the legal mechanism they rely on to be enforceable."

They are useful only in the context of the copyright law. Please note that
in the absence of copyright law as a government enforced monopoly
proprietary software on a larger scale is less attractive. So in a free
society with no government intervention I would argue proprietary code
would be a rarity.

What do you think?

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

--f46d04479615e0f84704b1d7228d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks for replying.Allow me to comment on a few things."T=
he concept of property just is artificial in general."All idea=
s and concepts are artificial in a way, however the concepts of property ar=
e based on an inescapable property of things
to be scarce. It has very little to do with selfishness and greed, but more=
with organization. Even if everyone is not greedy,you still have got t=
o outline what part of land are you using and what part is your neighbour u=
sing.
So this is what I mean by saying it is founded on a non-artificial situatio=
n."In a capitalistic society, it should be possible to earn mo=
ney by=20
investing your time and effort in producing things people need/want.=20
People being paid for their time and effort directly may be preferable.=20
There's still a need/use for copyright to protect the outcome, to allow=
=20
the investment to be made beforehand. This way, payment can depend on=20
the quality of the outcome."So basically what you are saying i=
s that in your view copyright is something that will motivate people to cre=
ate things and that withoutit people are less likely to do things. And =
we go back to the same argument I pointed to earlier.
It is not a bad argument in itself as long as we speak about work for hire.=
Culture is a different phenomena which cannot be limited to a collection o=
f works for hire. This is why I do not believe this argument works when we =
speak about culture.
Does it work when we speak about a caste of professional creative peopl=
e? It does, definitely. But is the caste of professional creative people so=
desirable to society? This is another question we can discuss.
"Oh, and in a funny twist, the GPL and similar licenses provide a reas=
on=20
for copyright on immaterial goods, as they have well founded objectives=20
and copyright is the legal mechanism they rely on to be enforceable."<=
br>They are useful only in the context of the copyright law. Please not=
e that in the absence of copyright law as a government enforced monopoly pr=
oprietary software on a larger scale is less attractive. So in a free socie=
ty with no government intervention I would argue proprietary code would be =
a rarity.
What do you think?-- Louigi Veronahttp://www.louigiverona.ru/

--f46d04479615e0f84704b1d7228d--

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)