Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Folderol <folderol@...>
Cc: <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Thursday, February 14, 2013 - 5:08 am

--14dae9340e11b3237304d5a840d8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I see this reasoning all the time, when in copyright debates or libertarian
vs statism
debates: utilitarian arguments, basically saying this:

P1. Law X gives Y benefit Z.
P2. If we have no X, Y will have no Z.
P3. I want Y to have Z.
C. Therefore, we should keep X.

The problem is in premise 3.
Sure, you want Y to have Z. So what? I want to live forever. What next?

As soon as you say that copyright should be there, because it will give
someone a benefit,
you have to explain why not pass some other law that will give other people
benefits.
And, from my experience, all those explanations are arbitrary, because
copyright is an
arbitrary regulation, which was initially a censorship mechanism.

But I would also question premise 2. How do you know that without benefit
Z, Y will not
go out and find benefit Z+Z?

L.V.

--14dae9340e11b3237304d5a840d8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I see this reasoning all the time, when in copyright debates or libertarian=
vs statismdebates: utilitarian arguments, basically saying this:P1. Law X gives Y benefit Z.P2. If we have no X, Y will have no Z.
P3. I want Y to have Z.C. Therefore, we should keep X.The probl=
em is in premise 3.Sure, you want Y to have Z. So what? I want to live =
forever. What next?As soon as you say that copyright should be ther=
e, because it will give someone a benefit,
you have to explain why not pass some other law that will give other people=
benefits.And, from my experience, all those explanations are arbitrary=
, because copyright is anarbitrary regulation, which was initially a ce=
nsorship mechanism.
But I would also question premise 2. How do you know that without benef=
it Z, Y will notgo out and find benefit Z+Z?L.V.

--14dae9340e11b3237304d5a840d8--

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

Messages in current thread:
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Ralf Mardorf, (Tue Feb 12, 11:59 pm)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, drew Roberts, (Tue Feb 12, 11:41 pm)
[LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Wed Feb 13, 2:53 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Al Thompson, (Wed Feb 13, 6:59 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Wed Feb 13, 7:19 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Neil C Smith, (Wed Feb 13, 7:04 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Folderol, (Wed Feb 13, 7:22 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Chris Bannister, (Sat Feb 16, 4:19 am)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Sat Feb 16, 1:48 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Louigi Verona, (Thu Feb 14, 5:08 am)