Greetings, everyone, My intention in correcting the Moyers program was not to indicate a policy preference; it was simply to point out what the law provides. Personally, IMO copyright offers pros and cons. To the precise extent it provides some with advantages, it denies them to others.
If we agree that the greater good is served by the free production and exchange of ideas -- which I see as a recurrent theme in our postings here -- we are still left with the argument that copyright at a minimum assists the production end of the process. For those people who want their ideas disseminated widely and freely, copyright is ZERO impediment to that: all you have to do is specify that free and unfettered reproduction is allowed/encouraged. I am sure you have noted many instances in which authors do this. Sometimes they specify that nothing in their materials can be changed, and that their attribution must be reproduced, too. Cheers to all, Lawry > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 8:25 PM > To: Brad McCormick, Ed.D.; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Karen Watters Cole; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] copyrights (was Sonny Bono Pro Bono) > > > Brad and Lawry, > > Most of us would be glad to have our stuff copied and distributed across > the world. > > Those of us who make money on our writings probably don't provide much > treasure to copiers. > > The major best seller writers don't have to worry about copying either. > Procedures can be set up to deal with any copiers with offsets in their > basements. > > As you see, I don't agree with either copyright, or patents. The > only real > protection they give is to the big battalions - the grunts are > overwhelmed. > > Harry > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > > Brad wrote: > > >Lawrence DeBivort wrote: > >>Gosh, I hate to quibble with Moyers, but this may be more than > a quibble: > >>copyright protects not an idea but text. Whatever I write is protected > >>(except for fair use provisions), But the idea that I am > writing about is > >>not, /per se, /protected. Anyone can freely express the same > idea, and as > >>long as they do it with substantially different words (or text) > there is > >>no infringement. > > > >[snip] > > > >I would once again refer to Elizabeth Eisenstein's _The Printing > >Press as an Agent of Change_. > > > >Before the printing press, the notion of copyright would > >have been intellectually suicidal for an author: In manuscript > >culture, the only way your ideas could survive > >was if people copied them. "Please, everybody, copy > >my text!" > > > >-- > > > >Does the "digital revolution" mean anything when > >push comes to shove (i.e., when $$$ are involved), > >or is it just fun words to mouth? > > > >If the digital revolution is no revolution in > >copyright, perhaps it is no revolution anywhere > >else in our once new but now in its turn ancien regime of > >"representative deomcracy" and "free market enterprise". > > > >I have long felt Joseph Weizenbaum was on to something > >important when he said that the computer was one of > >the most powerful forces for social reaction in the > >20th century. > > > >\brad mccormick > > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
