Re: Defending Google's licence to print
- From: Davémon <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:18:20 +0100
Paul wrote:
There is a growing movement to treat copyright and other forms of
intellectual property as if they were just like other forms of
property right.
Thats not a 'growing movement' at all, they've always been that way. Thats why they're called /property rights/, not anything else.
What is a growing movement, is the idea that IP can be treated as a natural resource, like air, water or oil, which is just sat there waiting to be commodified by anyone with the technology to do so.
This would mean that Domino Recording, who hold the copyright in the
new Franz Ferdinand album own it in the same way I own the laptop I am
currently writing on.
No, actually, it doesn't. What it means is that Domino Recording have been given the right to copy and distribute duplicates of the album, by Franz Ferdinand, and you haven't.
Also, you do not have the right to copy and distribute duplicates of your laptop either (patents, design rights etc.).
That is not the case. Copyright is a time-limited state-granted
monopoly that gives the rights holder certain privileges.
Ownership of all property is inherently ideological and state-granted. Ask the Chinese, or read some political history.
Clear motivation
Stanford Law professor Lawrence Lessig, chair of the Creative Commons,
puts it clearly when he points out that the authors "don't really want
the court to stop the new technology. Then, like now, they simply want
to be paid for the innovations of someone else. Then, like now, the
content owners ought to lose."
Does Google fund his research per-chance? The authors simply want to be paid for someone else commodifying their innovations.
Typical, ignorant IT person who thinks you can apply the same models to software development and the arts.
If existing copyright law can stop Google, or anyone else with the
inclination, from creating such a phenomenally useful tool, then
copyright law is wrong and must be changed.
It is in nobodys interest to take absolute power over the distribution of art away from the artist, and put it into the hands of a corporation, no matter how superficially beneficial their application may appear.
If it were the United Nations Econmic and Social Development people doing it, with opt-in clauses, which obeyed standard international copyright law, then yes, why not? But it isn't. It's a commercial company ripping off the authors of the world in order to make a quick buck.
By the way, why isn't Googlebot OpenSource?
--
Davémon http://www.nightsoil.co.uk .
- Prev by Date: Re: Outgoing links
- Next by Date: Re: Google Site Down for Last Hour or More?
- Previous by thread: Re: Defending Google's licence to print
- Next by thread: Re: Defending Google's licence to print
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
