Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]
Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 3:34 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko at pacujo.net> wrote:
>> PS IMO copyright laws should be abolished altogether. At the very
>> least one should pay for copyright protection. One ?1 for the first
>> year, ?2 for the second, ?4 for the third and so on exponentially.
> Why should I have to pay money for the right to own my own creations?
You shouldn't have to. IMO the government shouldn't interfere with other
people distributing your creations without your permission.
I offered a compromise: the government steps in to defend your monopoly
to your creation and you will pay for the protection -- exponentially.
> At what point does a creation have to be paid for - do I pay only if I
> think that I can make money off it? If I fail to pay, what happens -
No money, no protection.
> are people allowed to completely reuse and remix my work without even
> acknowledging me?
That would be ideal, absolutely!
> And who would you pay that to anyway? The one world government?
A good question! If I violate your foreign copyright in my country,
which country should enforce the collection of damages?
There's a precedent. If I send you a letter by mail, only my country's
postal service gets money but your country's postal service will deliver
it to you without compensation.
> the protections are important and extremely useful.
> Open source would not exist without copyright, because it is copyright
> law that gives license terms their meaning.
Some people would lose, others would win. On the balance, society would
win out by dropping the concept of a copyright.
> If people had to pay exorbitant rates for the privilege of being
> properly credited for their work, theft would completely trump
That wouldn't be theft.