On Mon, December 4, 2006 7:31 pm, Todd Walton wrote:
> On 12/4/06, Michael O'Keefe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You don't think he deserves some sort of protection against the
>> "pirates" that might distribute his film so that he won't get any
>> revenue from it ?
>
> Why? Because he's your brother? Because he's putting a lot on the
> line? Because it's hard work for him? Are we supposed to thank him
> for making something that expensive? Why does his act of creation
> entitle him to action on our part? Why does putting money into his
> film make him deserving of "protection"?
>
> You're basing your argument on practicality here. Does it work?
>
> -todd
>
And you're basing your argument on historical myopia. Michael was
personalizing a very pertinent question. When the printing press was
invented, which coincidentally made it possible for authors of original
and entertaining works to profit from their creations, it also made it
possible for them to get ripped off. Copyright didn't just appear or get
dictated by some sovereign; it was a solution to a serious inequity, a
solution so effective that it has existed ever since and is written into
our Constitution.
If the architects of our Republic had thought copyright was pernicious,
they could easily have written that no copyright would exist in the United
States. They chose to institute it and give Congress the power to regulate
it.
A man has to have pretty big cajones to say he knows better how things
should be run than the remarkable men who wrote the Constitution. And who
knows, you may be wiser, but nothing you've said on this thread has
revealed that superiority.
So without copyright, who is to profit from the creative effort and
financial sacrifice of the creator? I have no problem with people who
release works into the public domain voluntarily or choose a copyright
like the GPL. That's their choice, and a damned fine one too. But if
someone lives on cat food in a freezing garret for years writing plays,
novels, or screen plays, and then hits it big, I think that person has a
perfect right to collect the just profits of his work, and that includes
Michael's brother and his investors.
Saying that copyright should be abolished because it's been abused
recently in our pay-for-play form of government strikes me as a childish
snit. It's not exactly the way some of us think it should be, so it has to
go altogether.
But what you're really doing is having a tantrum over a symptom of a
problem and ignoring the root cause, a sure recipe for causing more
damage, not less ("graduated income tax is soooo unfair, we should just
have a flat tax!" Hello, can we think first?)
The root cause is that our system of campaign finance buys access to the
legislators for the monied interests, and by the time they're done with
the $500 meals, hookers, and golf trips to paradise, everybody's convinced
that the American people will die of poverty and cultural neglect if
Donald Duck doesn't get another 90 year reprieve. Do you really think that
the academic economists and public interest volunteeers stand a chance
against unlimited flattery and money? They can't even afford a ticket to
Washington or to be away from their jobs that long.
So please kill this stupid self-involved thread and spend your time
writing and phoning and ping flooding your congresscritter to write
legislation that calls bribes bribes, and outlaws all coprorate campaign
donations and puts reasonable limits on what people can donate
individually.
The only way to fix things is to identify and correct root causes.
I have spoken <sound of rumbling thunder>
--
Lan Barnes
SCM Analyst Linux Guy
Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
