Re: BBC tell whoppers on downloads
- From: Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:51:04 +0100
On 27 Mar 2006 08:22:47 -0800, news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Alex Heney wrote:
On 27 Mar 2006 03:53:51 -0800, news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Alex Heney wrote:<snip>
Copyright protection only really became necessary when copying became
reasonably cheap and easy.
Correct, and copyright used to make some sort of sense when the
economics suited it. However, the economics has changed again, copying
is now not just cheap, but effectively zero in price, not just easy but
trivial, and the fixed costs have also effectively melted away due to
the wide and routine availability of the necessary copy equipment,
which stands there waiting to be used.
Which, of course, just makes copyright legislation even *more*
necessary.
Not at all.
Wrong.
The thing is, when the cost of a copy drops to zero, there
is no actual added value in the provision of a copy - if you hold
copyright, you can provide potentially infinite copies at approaching
zero cost. The license in effect becomes a license to print money,
because the only value is in added elements (physical CD,
documentation, services, support etc).
Which is all true, but is absolutely NOTHING to do with any of the
issues surrounding copyright AT ALL.
Copyright has never been about "added value". It is about the right of
the author to control copying of their work.
Basically to have the right, if they want it, to be paid for the
effort and creativity that went into that work.
That is what Microsoft has
exploited to such good effect, for example if they "give" away
"discounted" licenses" for software which in effect costs them nothing
to supply in larger volume. Almost equivalent to being able to issue
their own currency, and not a good thing to have in the system.
You appear to be completely lacking the most basic understanding of
what copyright is about.
And what causes MS to be able to act in the way they do - which is
again NOTHING to do with copyright.
<snip>
I might not have such an issue with copyright if fair use rights were
being maintained, if there were sensible expiry terms (maybe 7 or 14
years, given today's ever faster product cycles), and if digital
restrictions technology which imposed and enforced conditions over and
above even today's copyright was outlawed by statute.
Unfortunately that sort of compromise isn't on the table, and the
reality is that works produced before I was born won't enter the public
domain in my lifetime, if ever, and it's getting harder to legally
purchase content without digital restrictions where I retain fair use
rights etc. If we're in that kind of game, then I start to reconsider
whether I accept "copyright" as we've had it in the past at all, or
whether to take the ball away and start a different kind of game.
This is a *completely* different argument, and one that does have some
merit.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Point not found. A)bort, R)eread, I)gnore.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: BBC tell whoppers on downloads
- From: news
- Re: BBC tell whoppers on downloads
- References:
- Re: BBC tell whoppers on downloads
- From: Mike
- Re: BBC tell whoppers on downloads
- From: The Todal
- Re: BBC tell whoppers on downloads
- From: Derek Potter
- Re: BBC tell whoppers on downloads
- From: JPB
- Re: BBC tell whoppers on downloads
- From: Alex Heney
- Re: BBC tell whoppers on downloads
- From: JPB
- Re: BBC tell whoppers on downloads
- From: Alex Heney
- Re: BBC tell whoppers on downloads
- From: news
- Re: BBC tell whoppers on downloads
- From: Alex Heney
- Re: BBC tell whoppers on downloads
- From: news
- Re: BBC tell whoppers on downloads
- Prev by Date: Re: Entrapment comes to the UK
- Next by Date: Re: Entrapment comes to the UK
- Previous by thread: Re: BBC tell whoppers on downloads
- Next by thread: Re: BBC tell whoppers on downloads
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading