why would a publisher pay a writer if their competitor could wait for them to publish a book, buy one copy, and flood the market with copies?
you could argue that the head start the first publisher has would protect him, but if the second publisher has better marketing or distribution channels that would not be the case.
digital copies may be effectively free, but the work to generate the first copy is not. if you eliminate copyright then the entire cost of creating the work must be recovered by the first sale (because the creator has no reason to believe that they will ever make a second sale)
even in software:
many people do believe that the code they write should be able to be used by anyone for any purpose, those people select BSD licenses.
other people believe that other people should be able to use the software they write, but only if you share your changes.
if you eliminated copyright entirely it would be like making everything be under the BSD license (you may be able to copy something without violating copyright, but if the source isn't published you can't get at it to copy it)
Posted Dec 12, 2008 3:27 UTC (Fri) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
[Link]
many people do believe that the code they write should be able to be
used by anyone for any purpose, those people select BSD licenses.
That is simply not true. Please explain how I can legally use BSD code
after it is compiled and included in some proprietary binary? - I can't.
You did say anyone, not just the first person to receive the code.
other people believe that other people should be able to use the software
they write, but only if you share your changes.
Many people believe that this requirement is only an ethical requirement
to help counteract the evil of copyright. If this were the only thing
that copyright provided, I certainly would deem it unethical. It is only
because of copyright that the restrictions that the GPL imposes are
honorable. It's a little like Robin Hood stealing from the rich, we honor
it because he is presumably stealing back what was stolen from the poor in
the first place. If the rich however acquired their loot ethically his
actions would be dispecable.
if you eliminated copyright entirely it would be like making everything
be under the BSD license (you may be able to copy something without
violating copyright, but if the source isn't published you can't get at it
to copy it)
No, not at all. Without copyright all code would be much closer to the
GPL. As mentioned above, with BSD code I may be prohibited from using
your code if it is relabeled proprietary. This cannot happen to any code
without copyright. The worst that can happen without copyright is code
obfuscation and tivoization, but there would be no legal barriers!!! As
mentioned in my parent post, this would just lead to better tools to deal
with obfuscation and tivoization making the code effectively GPL. I did
forget about tivoization in my parent post, but that is only a GPL3
protection.
Copyright
Posted Dec 12, 2008 11:13 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462)
[Link]
Imagine there's no Cisco, it's easy if you try
No RMS behind us, above us only Skype
Imagine all the people
Abandoning copyright
You may say you don't need it
And you're not the only one
I really hope someday some anarchist will write something non-copyrighted
but intelligent and immensely popular and widespread about peace, love,
tivoization and tolerance like the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta or a
great recipe for chicken tikka or maybe some kernel driver
And the world will live as one
Copyright
Posted Dec 12, 2008 17:49 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)
[Link]
"That is simply not true. Please explain how I can legally use BSD code after it is compiled and included in some proprietary binary? - I can't. You did say anyone, not just the first person to receive the code."
Presumably, you can get a copy from wherever the author of the proprietary program did. You have to distinguish between "the code" (the thing the original author wrote and licensed) and "a particular copy or derivative of the code" (which may or may not be available or visible to you).