4 ms·
It would be better to step further back and separate copying from production. People should contribute to production and be able to freely copy what is produced
by hxa7241 16y ago
It would be better to step further back and separate copying from production. People should contribute to production and be able to freely copy what is produced. The two are not really in conflict, in fact they are mutually supportive. Copyright artificially induces this opposition when it has no absolute need to. We now need a better arrangement.
- tjr 16y agoI'm not sure I understand. Can you provide an example?
- hxa7241 16y agoAny system where support or funding for production does not depend on restricting copying: those should be inspirations for alternatives. Open-source/free software, Wikipedia, the BBC, science/academic research . . . The internet is a communication device, and we should be using to its max. All questions about distinguishing different kinds of copying, and whether one is moral or not, do not reach the real heart of the matter. All copying (assuming good stuff) is good, ultimately, and we ought to fit our commercial system to that, not the other way around.
- rick888 16y ago"Open-source/free software" This isn't true freedom. I am not allowed to copy open source software into my commercial application without releasing my revisions. It's also funny that you mention open source, because it's eventually going to bring down the wages of developers. This is because the difficult parts (IE: the software that needs to be engineered) is given out for free and businesses only need the mechanics to make changes (lower education, skillm and pay requirements).
- thefool 16y agoI totally agree. The problem is how do you make it possible for the best people making music (or whatever other internet good) to completely sustain themselves via things they put online.
- InclinedPlane 16y agoAre you implying this isn't happening already?