Nobody is denying the societal benefit of copyrights. What is being
disputed is the societal benefit of eternal copyrights, where all
human knowledge/advances eventually become the property of an immortal
corporation. The Heathkit manual situation is on the periphery of an
issue that's going to have to be resolved by some method other than
our current solution, which is to ignore the law. Increasingly, that
isn't going to be possible as technology advances.
And before you say "there are no eternal copyrights", while this is
technically true, they're becoming eternal 25 years at a time. You
can't deny that this is the direction of travel.
Freedom, and fairness, come down to an equitable solution for all
members of a society. Eternal copyrights via incrementalism is not
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Jim Brown <email@example.com> wrote:
> Copyright is NOT an abridgement of FREEDOM -- the constitution does not
> allow us to steal bread off of our neighbor's table, nor from the cash
> register of a business that bought a copyright, and that's what you're doing
> when you violate a copyright.
Amps mailing list