I'm trying to make a larger point here: that copyright as a legal concept is sometimes unnecessary because there is a very powerful set of social norms that supercedes it and renders it irrelevant. The example of academic plagiarism is probably the best one, but it's hardly singular.
It would be interesting to study the economics of music performance and composition in the era before copyright, or before recorded music. Mozart had no trouble making a living. Why didn't everyone else just copy him? Why wasn't he destroyed by having every good idea immediately stolen? I don't know the answer, but I suspect it's similar to modern academia - everyone in the community knew Mozart, his style, his famous works, and if people copied them it simply made him more famous, more in demand to compose a new piece, or as a performer, or to be the composer-in-residence, or as a teacher, etc. What's wrong with that as a model for music today? -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34928 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
