[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters |
Date: |
06 May 2004 13:04:38 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 |
Stefaan A Eeckels <tengo@DELETEMEecc.lu> writes:
> The idea behind copyrights and patents (protected trademarks are
> something different) is to make it worthwhile to produce "goods"
> that can be reproduced at low cost. If you cannot get a reasonable
> compensation for producing a book, an opera, or a computer program
> because of unbridled copying, then you will probably decide you need
> a day job to support you (like sitting at the till in a Pick'n Pay
> :-). It is fairly obvious that today, the system is out of kilter,
> but it's equally obvious that the availability of cheap reproduction
> makes it impossible to produce certain (maybe desirable)
> reproducible goods.
The availability of cheap reproduction makes it impossible to produce
desirable reproducible goods?
That is completely and utter bullshit. The availability of cheap
reproduction does not _replace_ the initial production of a
reproducible good. Before something can be reproduced, it has to
exist in the first place.
Take a look at the Bible as an example of a text basically in the
Public Domain. The total revenue is insignificant as compared to
other much more short-lived publications. You get the best imaginable
quality of print, editing and binding for very low prices. Bible
publishing is a challenging business: you have to be good to be
competitive.
It is the most widely printed work in the world. Specialists
preparing new editions are paid well. Because there is a demand for
their work to be done in the first place.
Never mind that it gets copied: it has to be _done_ before it can be
copied.
> Humans love to see the world in black and white.
That's why "Casablanca" was such a success.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters, (continued)
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters, Michael Elizabeth Chastain, 2004/05/03
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters, Jim, 2004/05/03
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters, Snuffelluffogus, 2004/05/04
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters, Russ Allbery, 2004/05/05
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters, Snuffelluffogus, 2004/05/05
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters, Russ Allbery, 2004/05/05
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters, Snuffelluffogus, 2004/05/05
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters, Russ Allbery, 2004/05/05
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters, Bernd Jendrissek, 2004/05/06
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters, Stefaan A Eeckels, 2004/05/06
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters, Stefaan A Eeckels, 2004/05/06
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters, David Kastrup, 2004/05/06
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters, Stefaan A Eeckels, 2004/05/06
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters, David Kastrup, 2004/05/06
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters, Stefaan A Eeckels, 2004/05/06
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters, John Hasler, 2004/05/06
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters, Stefaan A Eeckels, 2004/05/07
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters, David Kastrup, 2004/05/07
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters, Michael Elizabeth Chastain, 2004/05/06
- Message not available
- Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters, Martin Dickopp, 2004/05/07