> That's because that's the constitutional reason *for* copyright. Copyright > doesn't exist because it's "good for the artist".
Then I am a revolutionary. I think I should be free to do things for my own profit instead of for the good of society. That sounds a lot like enforcing "altruistic intentions" > I also can't sell you some software and restrict (other than copying) how > you use it in the privacy of your own home. Well, remember one thing: you bought a license of the software, not the software itself. If you rent a movie at blockbuster, you bought the right to play it in the privacy of your own home as many times as you would like. You did not buy the movie. Consider buying a license for my software as "undefinetely long borrowing". > If you sell me your $1,000,000 graphics package and tell me I can only use > it once and then I must delete it, you better have something besides > copyright to enforce that, because I'm sure as heck going to make a backup > copy of it and use it as much as I like. Well, when you bought it you agreed to the terms (a.k.a gave your word) that you would not do that. You are not only going against the law that protects my copyright, but you are also breaking your own word and becoming a liar. Don't word it as "telling me I can only use it once and then I must delete it". The real wording should be "and I agreed with you at the moment of purchase to use it once and delete it afterwards". If you didn't agree or intend to uphold the conditions, then you should not have bought it. Obviously the trade was not benefitial to you. In that case you should go get Maya, 3D Max or Blender. You knew the conditions from the very beginning. If you still purchased it with the intention to break the end-user agreement, then obviously you meant to lie and deceive me, and therefore you are a criminal. That is why "the government should hold a gun to their heads and force them to behave in a certain way", using the same symbolism that Michael was using earlier. I guess I will put you on my "do-not-lend-money" list since I guess I cannot trust your integrity, regardless of whether you would ask me for money or not. > Copyright was not intended, nor can it (outside of the DMCA) be used to > control a copyrighted work. It was intended to secure, for limited times, > an exclusive "right to copy" to allow the author to recoup his or her > costs, giving people incentive to create more works, thus furthering the > progress of science and the useful arts. > > The best example of this I saw on Slashdot--my favorite author is Isaac > Asimov. He wrote hundreds upon hundreds of books, and was able to secure > quite a nice living from them. In the absence of copyright, he probably > would have had to hold down some other job and would probably have written > considerably fewer books, which I would consider to be a great loss. > > Copyright didn't exist so that Asimov could make a fortune--copyright > existed so that Asimov would write more books for me to read. Well, whatever. I am pretty sure that Asimov was not thinking of you when he wrote his books. > Again, that's because that's what the constitutionally defined role of > copyright is, and that's how the courts have interpretted copyright again > and again. Well, I am glad that regardless of what the courts say, I still can make my own end-user agreements. Or at least my self-created right to put conditions on my software is being enforced as opposed to the Michael-created right to copy. Chris Alvarez -------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
