On Feb 25, 2009, at 5:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Yuckypoo, Brady! Your metaphor's a bummer on every level. First off,
what I
want to protect by copyright is something I created, not something
allotted to
me by the guv. Second, what I created is unique, not absolutely like
every
other allotted plot. Third, the public should only over-graze it!
Come by
their
thousands to partake of its provisions. Fourth, ain't no WoA ever
been hurt by
being seen by too many people. (Pace the critics who may be inclined
to
disdain a work solely on the grounds that it's so popular -- if the
masses
love it,
it must be infra-dig.) Grazers may come away with something they
didn't have
before contemplating the WoA, but the work is not diminished in the
least.
Okay, Michael, now display your nimble mind by listing ways in which
the
metaphor you just made up is a damn good one.
Well, "metaphor" only referred to the reference to Jack Sparrow, which
I lifted for my own use.
The Problem of the Commons is a well-known issue of economic theory (I
erred by referring to it as property law, but I didn't make it up) and
the issue is whether parties acting in their own interest will
maximize a public facility or overuse it, if they don't have a stake
in its ownership or maintenance. Abandoning the protections of a
copyright is, in effect, putting your work out on the commons, to be
misused by others as it may happen. As I mentioned previously, by
using and policing copyright protection, you can insure to a greater
degree the proper use of your work, that each instance is an accurate
reproduction of the original, that the words or music or color on
grayscale tonalities are correct, haven't been "tweaked" or distorted
in any way (whether doing so diminishes or enhances the original), The
harm or benefit isn't tied up with how many people see your play, but
with how many stage it without your permission and misuse it, because
they don't have a stake in it.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[email protected]
