Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture
Posted Jan 29, 2013 21:16 UTC (Tue) by khim
In reply to: Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture
Parent article: Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture
No one has some kind of mystical right to use, borrow, copy, sell or eat what I make unless I say so. In effect, rights to the things I make come from me, not the universe.
Oh, absolutely. As long as you keep the stuff you've created private, you know secret everything is fine. I've not seen anyone who says that it's Ok to trespass and borrow your unfinished future bestseller to sell it as his (or her) own creation. Trouble starts when you start to share.
Copyright, licensing, and all such schemes are, from my point of view, legal scaffolding erected, in principle, to protect my rights to the things I make, and to protect the exercise by others of the rights I transfer to them in one fashion or another.
Not even close. Copyright was always about publishers, never about authors. It was created to fill publisher's coffins, nothing more, nothing less. If you gave me copy (voluntarily gave!) why should you control what I do with my own copy? It's not yours anymore!
An absence of rules governing behavior does not mean the behavior goes away.
No, but it saves the public money: instead of spending money for the witch hunt it'll spend money for the authors. Here is recording industry example: yes, mass MP3 copying is killing recording companies, but if money go to the people who really create music instead, then... what's the problem? Why should we care what happens with obsolete and useless industry? Because it's large industy? Somehow iceman's disappeared without making electric refrigerators illegal - and once upon time it was much larger industry.
to post comments)