Quoting Tim Makarios (tjm1...@gmail.com): [...] > And that's sort of my point, really.
A lot of talk about convenience. Thank you for that, I guess. And thank you for having reminded us that literary works available under redistrubution-permitting licences such as CC-BY-SA have typically been put into machine-readable form by _somebody_. So, even though I was guesstimating that, as a fast typist, I'd have been able (if my OCRing facilities didn't suffice) to type in, and correct, the full text of _Pride and Prejudice_ in a week, creating plaintext suitable for markup, that work would be seldom necessary. So, convenience, yay. I wish you luck with that campaign. >> I'm sorry, but _who_ exactly are you saying is advocating abolition of >> copyright? And what colour is the sky in their vicinity? > > Well, Karl Fogel [1, 2], for example, unless I've misunderstood him. FWIW, seems to me, you very much have. The nub of Karl's argument is typified by this paragraph near 0the end of the first cited piece: The proprietary stream cannot survive forever, in the face of such competition. The abolition of copyright law is optional; the real force here is creators freely choosing to release their works for unrestricted copying, because it's in their interests to do so. At some point, it will be obvious that all the interesting stuff is going on in the free stream, and people will simply cease dipping into the proprietary one. Copyright law may remain on the books formally, but it will fade away in practice, atrophied from disuse. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
