[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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.

Disagree there.

> 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
> generosity.

That wouldn't be theft.