* Chris Alvarez [Sat, 26 Mar 2005 at 12:36 -0700] <quote> > > 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"
You can do things for your own profit. That's just fine. What I think is wrong is lobbying for the government to ensure that YOU can make YOUR money the way YOU want to. In all fairness, we are a self interested race. We do things out of self interest, and rarely out of virtue. I am guilty of the same. When I get a job and work for money, I am doing just that, working for money. I am providing for myself. This nation was, however, founded on principles of virtue. The framers of the constitution wanted a virtuous society. They knew, however, that the common man just does not do enough out of virtue; It just WOULD NOT work. So, they threw self interest into the mix. It was a carefully balanced mix. They framed certain rules that would leverage self interest for the interest of the society. Being self interested is fine and normal in your own life. The government (by the people, for the people) must be about the society. When someone wants to make a law, you better believe I will expect it to help society or I will appose it. > > 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 the beauty of the system. Asimov can write his books without caring for the society and yet he benefits society! Thats because the rules in place make the interest of the author the interest of the society. It's interesting to point out that a major part of these rules that make the interest of the author the interest of society are simple economics. But this is precisely why the framers choose to provision a free market. The other part is to ensure that the author stands to benefit from his work - copyright - and the goal was to use his self interest to benefit society. You can argue all you want for your self interest. I'm not likely to sympathize with you on that. If you argue for society, I will hear you out and we can discuss the pros and cons of ideas in the context of society. It's something people can agree on, where one person or groups own interests are not. Von Fugal
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-------------------- 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
