| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
``Economic benefit'' a time bomb?``Economic benefit'' a time bomb?Posted Aug 15, 2008 3:19 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)In reply to: ``Economic benefit'' a time bomb? by Max.Hyre Parent article: Why the JMRI decision matters
You should not be worried. Consider this sentence: > "There are substantial benefits, _including_ economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties." The key word above is "including". So, the court sees that economic benefits are just part of the copyright holder's interest here. So, to answer you question: "What happened to a copyright being the right to prevent copying, period." - nothing. It still there, alive and well. PS. In case you are wondering what those other, non-economic benefits of doing FOSS may be, I'll mention just a few: "being smart bragging rights", "being a nice guy rights", "supporter of community rights", "betterment of humanity rights" etc. All these things are important to these copyright holders and the court knows that.
(Log in to post comments)
``Economic benefit'' a time bomb? Posted Aug 15, 2008 15:51 UTC (Fri) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] The key word above is "including". So, the court sees that economic benefits are just part of the copyright holder's interest here. So, to answer you question: "What happened to a copyright being the right to prevent copying, period." - nothing. It still there, alive and well.Sure, it's there. My question is, why was anything else brought into this case at all? PS. In case you are wondering what those other, non-economic benefits of doing FOSS may be, I'll mention just a few: [....] All these things are important to these copyright holders and the court knows that.Yes, but, as above, why should the court care? [Talks through hat.] The only benefit confered by a copyright monopoly is that of society receiving (eventually) another work in the public domain. (Per the U.S. Constitution.) Seems no one else's benefit is involved here. If a piece of Free Software is allowed to be taken proprietary, the author is less likely to create another, thus depriving society ninety-nine (or whatever) years hence. So, if allowing a license to be flouted reduces the benefit to the public domain, it should not be allowed, and no other considerations, either monetary nor intangible benefits in the present, need, nor should, enter the decision. I guess that's my core question: why did the judge bring in anything other than ``unlicensed copying bad for public domain, therefore not allowed.''? Time to go read the decision...
``Economic benefit'' a time bomb? Posted Aug 15, 2008 17:39 UTC (Fri) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link] Because since 1978 the public domain ceased to exist?
``Economic benefit'' a time bomb? Posted Aug 17, 2008 23:57 UTC (Sun) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > The only benefit confered by a copyright monopoly is that of society receiving (eventually) another work in the public domain. And for society to receive that benefit, copyright holders are equally promised benefits coming their way, through the power to exclude. > Yes, but, as above, why should the court care? The court cares because the state promised copyright holders would get the benefits, whatever they may be.
``Economic benefit'' a time bomb? Posted Aug 19, 2008 8:17 UTC (Tue) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] The only benefit confered by a copyright monopoly is that of society receiving (eventually) another work in the public domain, you say. That's not actually true. If it was, there would be no reason to have copyright at all for software. The eventual benefit, another program in the public domain in a hundred years (give or take a few decades) has essentially zero value. But there is one benefit more; copyright stimulates (or is meant to, anyway) the CREATION of creative works. The theory goes, if we didn't have it, less books would get written, less software created. Having the book written is beneficial to society -- even before it falls in the public domain. We're paying a much too high price though. Does anyone HONESTLY believe that much less software would get created if copyright was only, say 20 years ? I sure as hell don't. If we could get the same for a lower price, why then, do we persist in paying the higher price ? It's just downright silly.
|
|
||||||||||||