On 07/12/09 18:15, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Always a possibility, but let me put it this way: If that's not the
>> reason, then I don't see a single good reason for having copyright.
>
> To let people develop information products at all? If copying is

	But that does serve the reason provided, which somebody was suggesting 
need not be the main reason.

>> Your analogy is not good. The person physically owns the factory. He
>> does not, however, prevent others from building factories to produce
>> similar products,
>
> Neither does copyright. Your Pheonix BIOS proves the point. Copyright
> only prevents copying, not independent invention.

	In terms of stories, copyright prevents me from producing stories that 
are too similar. There's no equivalent in the world of factories, 
barring patents.

>> pretend to be the same brand (copyright kicks in here).
>
> That would actually be trademarks in the USA. And trademarks expire if
> you don't continuously trade under them, so that satisfies me. :-)

	OK - Didn't know that.

>> For the creator of a piece of art, copyright serves *only* for profit
>> motives (from _his_ perspective). That's why few people really care
>> that much about intellectual property as opposed to physical, and
>> that's also probably why copyright is a recent phenomenon.
>
> Copyright is a recent phenomenon because copying is a recent phenomenon.
> When it takes almost as much work to make a copy as it does to create it
> fresh, there's not a whole lot of need for copyright.

	Granted, the ease of copying was a big factor, but what about song 
lyrics? A thousand years ago, I create a song, which is easily copied 
(lyrics and tune). I don't know if there was a notion of copyright for 
those things back then (haven't looked).

-- 
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright 
ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little 
sign of breaking down in the near future.

Post a reply to this message