!@!Re: [Upd-discuss] #3 More Copyright

[Michael Hart]

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--927332834-402797293-1096399680=:18321
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT


The point is that one can receive royalties on a patent
for a similar time as patents were in force for all history,
while the period of copyright enforcement started out about
the same as patents, and have gone totally out of sight.

I can make a copy of nearly EVERYTHING *patented* today in
my [statistically expected] lifetime.

I can make a copy of nearly NOTHING *copyrighted* in my lifetime,
even though I ONCE could have expected this to be true by law.


Michael


On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, sandor wrote:

> Hello,
> 
>     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.
> 
> Cheers!
> -sándor
> 
>    
> 
> John Howkins wrote:
>       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.  
>       John
> 
>       On 28/9/04 6:37 pm, "sandor" <upd@sandor.net> wrote:
> 
>             Mmm,
> 
>                 I don't believe that's actually correct.
> 
>                 Anything for which you maintain a monopoly on
>             production has this possibility.
>                 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.
> 
>                 But I understand the sentiment would apply
>             the question to any of the above means of
>             achieving the same end.
> 
>             Cheers!
>             -sándor
> 
>             Jsavirimuthu@aol.com wrote:
>                   In a message dated 28/09/2004
>                   17:34:06 GMT Standard Time,
>                   hart@pglaf.org writes:
>                         Why are copyrighted works
>                         the ONLY way a person can
>                         make a living for the
>                         rest of his/her life with
>                         ONE
>                         single piece of work?
> 
>                   Interesting question Michael - this
>                   brings us to the idea of "open" and
>                   "closed" models of production. But
>                   for Napster - would we have ITunes?
>                    
>                   Joseph
>                    
>                   Liverpool Law School
>                   jsaviri@liverpool.ac.uk
>                   http://savirimuthu.typepad.com
>                   _______________________________________________
>                   Upd-discuss mailing list
>                   Upd-discuss@lists.essential.org
>                   http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Upd-discuss mailing list
> Upd-discuss@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss
>
--927332834-402797293-1096399680=:18321--