[Upd-discuss] #3 More Copyright
sandor
upd@sandor.net
Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:30:05 -0700
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hello,<br>
<br>
To be recursive, I believe the word 'works' would have to be used
to define itself. I'm not sure Michael's question would meet that
criteria.<br>
<br>
Cheers!<br>
-sándor<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
John Howkins wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="midBD7F641E.3FC%25john@johnhowkins.com" type="cite">
<title>Re: [Upd-discuss] #3 More Copyright</title>
<font face="Verdana">This is a recursive argument, based on the use
of the word ‘works’ twice. Lots of people live off one single idea or
achievement which, even if copyrightable, produce value in other ways:
eg, songs, artists/painters, architects, fashion designers and software
programmers. Not to mention people who live off patents. Or people
who have an idea, start a company and live off that. Or people who
live in countries or at times when copyright is weak or non-existent.
And so on. <br>
John<br>
<br>
On 28/9/04 6:37 pm, "sandor" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:upd@sandor.net"><upd@sandor.net></a> wrote:<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote><font face="Verdana">Mmm,<br>
<br>
I don't believe that's actually correct.<br>
<br>
Anything for which you maintain a monopoly on production has this
possibility.<br>
Also - this ignores the concept of time-shifted resources. Once
could sell an item for a large amount, equal to the sum of the residual
income.<br>
<br>
But I understand the sentiment would apply the question to any of
the above means of achieving the same end.<br>
<br>
Cheers!<br>
-sándor<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Jsavirimuthu@aol.com">Jsavirimuthu@aol.com</a> wrote:<br>
</font>
<blockquote><font face="Verdana"><font size="2">In a message dated
28/09/2004 17:34:06 GMT Standard Time, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:hart@pglaf.org">hart@pglaf.org</a> writes:<br>
</font></font>
<blockquote><font face="Verdana"><font size="2">Why are
copyrighted works the ONLY way a person can<br>
make a living for the rest of his/her life with ONE<br>
single piece of work?<br>
</font></font></blockquote>
<font face="Verdana"><font size="2">Interesting question Michael
- this brings us to the idea of "open" and "closed" models of
production. But for Napster - would we have ITunes?<br>
<br>
Joseph<br>
<br>
<font color="#0000ff"><b>Liverpool Law School<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jsaviri@liverpool.ac.uk">jsaviri@liverpool.ac.uk</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://savirimuthu.typepad.com">http://savirimuthu.typepad.com</a><br>
</b></font></font>_______________________________________________
Upd-discuss mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Upd-discuss@lists.essential.org">Upd-discuss@lists.essential.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss">http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss</a><br>
</font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<font face="Verdana"><br>
</font>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>